MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modifying Brushite Cement Degradation Using Calcium Alginate Beads

2007· article· en· W2035547161 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKey engineering materials · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrushiteCementCalciumMaterials scienceDegradation (telecommunications)PorosityCalcium alginateHydrolysisMatrix (chemical analysis)Chemical engineeringComposite materialChemistryMetallurgyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hydrolysis of brushite in calcium phosphate cements to form hydroxyapatite is known to result in the long term stability of the material in the body. It has previously been established that this hydrolysis reaction can be influenced by implant volume, media refreshment rate and media composition. In this study, the effect of macroporosity on the rate of degradation of the material is investigated. Macroporosity was incorporated into the material using calcium alginate beads mixed into the cement paste. The inclusion of the calcium alginate beads did not influence the degree of conversion of the material and allowed the incorporation of porosity at up to maximum of 57%. The macroporosity weakened the cement matrix (from 46.5 to 3.2 MPa). When aged the brushite in the macroporous cement dissolved completely from the matrix resulting in a weight loss of 60wt% in a period of 28 days. This suggests that the controlled incorporation of calcium alginate beads into brushite cements in vivo can be used to control implant degradation rate.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.216 · 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