MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051533111 · doi:10.1177/154405910608500712

Gelled Calcium Polyphosphate Matrices Delay Antibiotic Release

2006· article· en· W2051533111 on OpenAlexafffund
Stanley Schofield, Bob Berno, Maxine Langman, G. Hall, Mark Filiaggi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCefuroximePolyphosphateAntibioticsCalciumVancomycinMatrix (chemical analysis)ChemistrySalineChromatographyPhosphateMedicineAnesthesiaBacteriaBiochemistryStaphylococcus aureusBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introducing a gelling step during antibiotic incorporation has previously been found to delay vancomycin delivery from a calcium polyphosphate matrix intended for local treatment of bone infections. This study examined the general applicability of this approach using cefuroxime, a lower-molecular-weight antibiotic with different charge characteristics compared with those of vancomycin. A calcium polyphosphate/cefuroxime paste was "gelled" in disk form in a humid environment for 5 or 24 hours prior to drying. Antibiotic release in Tris-buffered saline under gentle agitation was monitored over a seven-day period. While non-gelled samples clearly exhibited a burst release, the gelling process significantly retarded early antibiotic release from five- and 24-hour gelled matrices, yielding a constant release rate over the first four days. Cefuroxime incorporation did not appear to alter matrix structure or degradation. Overall, this non-aggressive process effectively trapped cefuroxime and reduced its release rate, suggesting its potential applicability with molecularly diverse therapeutic agents.

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)0.001
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207