Initial evaluation of bone ingrowth into a novel porous titanium coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous metals (sintered beads and meshes) have been used for many years for different orthopedic applications. Metal foams have been recently developed. These foams have the advantage of being more porous than the traditional coatings. Their high porosity provides more space for bone ingrowth and mechanical interlocking and presents more surface for implant-bone contact. The objective of this study was to evaluate in vivo bone ingrowth into Ti implants covered with a novel Ti foam coating. This foam contains 50% in volume of interconnected pores and a higher surface area compared to dense Ti. Both coated implants and dense Ti controls were placed transcortically in the rat tibia. The animals were sacrificed at 2 weeks after implantation, and the amount of bone in the implants was determined using backscattered electron imaging and X-ray microtomography. Already at this time interval, the pores within the Ti foam showed 97.7% bone filling, and the bone-implant contact area was significantly increased compared to dense Ti controls. These initial results indicate that this novel Ti foam is biocompatible, has the capacity to sustain bone formation, and can potentially improve osseointegration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".