MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022440034 · doi:10.4012/dmj.24.398

In Vivo Effect of Fluoride-substituted Apatite on Rat Bone

2005· article· en· W2022440034 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Miho Inoue, Hitoshi Nagatsuka, Hidetsugu Tsujigiwa, Masahisa Inoue, Racquel Z. LeGeros, Toshio Yamamoto, Noriyuki Nagai

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Materials Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsApatiteIn vivoFluorideMaterials scienceCalciumPhosphateOsteoblastOsteoclastTibiaNuclear chemistryMineralogyIn vitroChemistryInorganic chemistryAnatomyMetallurgyBiochemistryMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different types of calcium phosphate compounds are commercially available for medical and dental applications as bone substitute materials. Biological apatites contain several kinds of minor elements such as carbonate (CO3), magnesium (Mg), and fluoride (F) in enamel, dentin, and bone. It has been shown that F ion and F-substituted apatite promoted osteoblast proliferation and inhibited osteoclast cell activity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the in vivo rat tibia activity on F-substituted apatite (FAp). Apatites of unsintered calcium deficient apatite (CDA), and FAps, with low, medium, and high F concentrations, were implanted in rat tibia for 1 and 2 weeks. Implanted tissues were embedded in paraffin blocks, stained with hematoxylin-eosin and histomorphometrically observed. Results showed that low F concentration induced better and faster new bone formation in vivo compared to CDA. Therefore the results suggested that F as a minor element in bone rendered a suitable effect on bone formation in vivo.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental Materials JournalSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207