Influence of oscillatory mixing on the injectability of three acrylic and two calcium‐phosphate bone cements for vertebroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Injecting acrylic and, increasingly, calcium-phosphate cements into the porous bone structure is an emerging procedure, referred to as vertebroplasty, for the augmentation of osteoporotic vertebrae. Despite the benefits of vertebroplasty, it has limitations. The limitations of interest in this study are the injectability of bone cements and their mixing variability (i.e., low reproducibility of resulting viscosity). The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of oscillatory versus manual mixing on cement viscosity and mixing variability. Five cements are tested: (a) Vertebroplastic, (b) DP-Pour, (c) Antibiotic Simplex, (d) chronOS Inject, and (e) Biopex. Compared to manual mixing, oscillatory mixing significantly decreased the mean viscosity and the mixing variability, which was inferred from the coefficient of variation. For example, under oscillatory mixing, the viscosity and the variability for Vertebroplastic decreased to one-third of the corresponding values for manual mixing. Similar results were obtained for the other cements. The decrease in viscosity is attributed to the pseudo-plastic behavior of bone cements. The decrease in the variability of cement viscosity was attributed to greater dispersive mixing of the cement components under oscillatory mixing. The decrease in viscosity eases the injection by reducing the pressure required. The decrease in the variability of cement viscosity increases reproducibility of the cement injection. Oscillatory mixing appears to have the potential to contribute to improving vertebroplasty.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".