Structure and Composition Comparison of Bone Mineral and Apatite Layers Formed in Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this in vitro study, the apatite formed on hydroxyapatite (HA) and alpha-tricalcium phosphates (α - TCP), as well as human trabecular bone were characterized with thin film X-ray diffraction (TF-XRD) and Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR), as well as Scanning Electron Microscopy-Energy Dispersive X-ray spectra (SEM-EDX) to compare their structure and composition. The morphology and chemical compositions of the apatites formed on the HA and α - TCP exhibited a great difference. The Ca/P molar ratio of the apatite formed on the α - TCP is 1.5 close to bone, but the Ca/P molar ratio of the apatite formed on HA is 1.1. The Rietveld refinement showed that HA structure can be used to simulate the structure of apatites formed and bones mineral. The crystal size and microstrain of apatites and bone mineral exhibited great difference. These results indicated that the phase of calcium phosphate ceramics have certain effects on the composition and morphology of apatite in vitro. From the structure view, the apatites formed on HA and α - TCP is similar with bone minerals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".