MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132200620 · doi:10.1002/jbm.10059

Use of Ti‐coated replicas to investigate the effects on fibroblast shape of surfaces with varying roughness and constant chemical composition

2002· article· en· W2132200620 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Wieland, Babak Chehroudi, Marcus Textor, D. M. Brunette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceScanning electron microscopeSurface roughnessSurface finishMicroscopyOptical microscopeTitaniumMorphology (biology)Composite materialProfilometerBiomedical engineeringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A two-stage replica technique with a subsequent titanium (Ti)-coating treatment was used to faithfully replicate topographies of polished, acid-etched, machined-like, finely blasted, coarsely blasted, coarsely blasted and acid-etched, and Ti plasma-sprayed Ti surfaces. The replicas were used to study the influence of different rough surface topographies on the response of human fibroblasts in vitro under conditions of constant surface chemistry for all surfaces. The surface topographies of the replicas were characterized using non-contact laser profilometry, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and stereo-SEM, whereas surface chemistry was examined using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Fibroblasts were trypsinized and plated onto the Ti-coated epoxy-resin replica surfaces for 24 h and observed with SEM. Fluorescein-5-thiosemicarbazide was used to stain the cell components including cell membrane, and the stained cells were optically sectioned using epifluorescent microscopy. The optical sections were computationally reconstructed to obtain three-dimensional images and cell volume and cell thickness determined. The different surface topographies were found to alter cell thickness and cell morphology. However, cell volume as computed from three-dimensional reconstructions was not affected by surface features. The results suggest that cells distort themselves to accommodate to rough surfaces but their volume is not significantly altered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations96
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials ResearchSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207