MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036720656 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.32175

Novel carbon fiber composite for hip replacement with improved <i>in vitro</i> and <i>in vivo</i> osseointegration

2008· article· en· W2036720656 on OpenAlexaff
Sashka Dimitrievska, James Whitfield, S. Adam Hacking, Martin Bureau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitute for Biological SciencesNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceOsseointegrationStress shieldingOsteoblastBiomedical engineeringComposite numberOsteocalcinIn vivoAlkaline phosphataseIn vitroComposite materialImplantBiologyMedicineBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel composite femoral stem has been developed to match cortical stiffness and achieve fixation by osseointegration with the primary goal to reduce cortical bone loss associated with stress shielding. The femoral stem consists of three distinct material layers: the first is a long carbon fiber (CF) in a polyamide 12 (PA12) polymer matrix (PA12/CF); the second is a PA12/HA (hydroxyapatite) interface; and the third is a plasma-sprayed coating of HA. In vitro studies with MG63 cells indicated that the HA surface supported improved proliferation and differentiation of osteoblast-like cells as determined by alkaline phosphatase activity and osteocalcin production when compared with Ti-6Al-4V (Ti64). In vivo studies comparing the composite and Ti64 rods in the rabbit femur demonstrated significantly higher bone apposition to the composite than Ti64 rods. The results of this study indicate that the invasion of surrounding bone cells and thus osteointegration together with its bone-matching mechanical properties make the PA12/CF/HA stem a promising hip replacement candidate.

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 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207