MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004378568 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.32737

A cross‐linking model for estimating Young's modulus of artificial bone tissue grown on carbon nanotube scaffold

2010· article· en· W2004378568 on OpenAlexaff
Kaveh PourAkbar Saffar, Ahmad Reza Arshi, Nima Jamilpour, Ahmad R. Najafi, Gholamreza Rouhi, Les Jozef Sudak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRepresentative elementary volumeModulusComposite materialCarbon nanotubeComposite numberScaffoldElastic modulusMatrix (chemical analysis)Young's modulusMicrostructureBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) provide a suitable environment for growth and proliferation of bone cells. The elastic properties exhibited by CNTs can enhance mechanical characteristics of bone mineral phase, hydroxyapatite (HAp), precipitated on such a scaffold. In this article, a simplified model for estimating the axial Young's modulus of a representative volume element (RVE) of CNT-HAp composite is presented. The model is based on the idea of HAp formation on functionalized sites on CNTs as cross-links between HAp matrix and CNT. Modeling results show that the reinforcement role contributed by CNT in the RVE causes a significant increase in the Young's modulus of the composite material which is a direct consequence of transferring stresses from the HAp matrix to the CNT through the cross-links. Similar conclusions may be suggested regarding the improvement of overall mechanical properties of the material. The prediction made by the model lies reasonably well within the limits proposed by conventional Rule-of-Mixtures, and sliding below Voigt's model. The Young's modulus predicted by the model lies adjacent to the Hashin-Shtrikman upper bound as a function of the RVE length (or equivalently CNT aspect ratio). The model simulation indicates that an increase in the CNT aspect ratio and/or number of cross-links in the RVE, results in the prediction to move closer to the estimation made by Voigt as the assumption of perfect bonding between composite phases is approached.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207