Real‐time monitoring of the setting reaction of brushite‐forming cement using isothermal differential scanning calorimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The setting behavior of a brushite-forming cement (beta-tricalcium phosphate/mono calcium monophosphate) was investigated using an indentation technique (the Gillmore needles method) and isothermal differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The two objectives of the study were to investigate whether DSC could be used to real-time monitor a fast-setting calcium phosphate cement (CPC) and to determine if it is possible to correlate DSC results directly with conventional setting-time measurements. Best-fit linear correlation analysis revealed that both the initial and final setting time (T(i) and T(f)) measured by indentation were strongly correlated to the maximum heat flow measured with DSC. It seems therefore possible to predict the setting times, usually achieved with user dependent indentation methods, of this specific fast setting CPC on the basis of objective DSC measurements. The drawbacks of DSC, however, are its overall complexity and expense and the fact that only exothermal reactions can be investigated in comparison to the Gillmore needles method, furthermore, it is not possible to monitor the complete reaction as the first 2 or 3 min are lost due to sample preparation and apparatus set up.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".