MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029980136 · doi:10.3390/ma3073911

Characterization of Biomaterials by Soft X-Ray Spectromicroscopy

2010· review· en· W2029980136 on OpenAlexafffund
Bonnie Leung, John L. Brash, Adam P. Hitchcock

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBiomaterialMaterials scienceCharacterization (materials science)XANESNanotechnologyPhotoemission electron microscopyProtein adsorptionMicroscopySynchrotronPolymerChemical engineeringChemistrySpectroscopyElectron microscopeOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synchrotron-based soft X-ray spectromicroscopy techniques are emerging as useful tools to characterize potentially biocompatible materials and to probe protein interactions with model biomaterial surfaces. Simultaneous quantitative chemical analysis of the near surface region of the candidate biomaterial, and adsorbed proteins, peptides or other biological species can be obtained at high spatial resolution via scanning transmission X-ray microscopy (STXM) and X-ray photoemission electron microscopy (X-PEEM). Both techniques use near-edge X-ray absorption fine structure (NEXAFS) spectral contrast for chemical identification and quantitation. The capabilities of STXM and X-PEEM for the analysis of biomaterials are reviewed and illustrated by three recent studies: (1) characterization of hydrophobic surfaces, including adsorption of fibrinogen (Fg) or human serum albumin (HSA) to hydrophobic polymeric thin films, (2) studies of HSA adsorption to biodegradable or potentially biocompatible polymers, and (3) studies of biomaterials under fully hydrated conditions. Other recent applications of STXM and X-PEEM to biomaterials are also reviewed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicElectron and X-Ray Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207