Influence of the porous morphology on the <i>in vitro</i> degradation and mechanical properties of poly(<scp>L</scp>‐lactide) disks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poly(L‐lactide) (PLLA) materials having an interconnected porosity are proposed as an alternative to nonporous biomaterials. Such materials allow for the potential of modulating the degradation behavior and the mechanical properties. In this article, the preparation of porous PLLA disks or cylinders with 50 and 65% void volume is presented. It is demonstrated that both a symmetric and asymmetric porosity can be generated within the disk itself. In addition, open‐ and closed‐cell structures can also be prepared. The accelerated in vitro degradation on symmetric open‐cell porous PLLA disks and on the nonporous control indicate a similar behavior in terms of melting temperature and inherent viscosity of the remaining pieces of the specimens, but the crystallinity and the mass of the remaining fragments are much smaller for the porous specimens. The mechanical properties under compression are determined for open and closed‐cell porous cylinders, porous tubes, and for the nonporous PLLA. The results highlight the excellent mechanical integrity of the prepared porous structures and demonstrate that such materials could have potential for use as biomedical implants. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 100: 1039–1047, 2006
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) | 0.001 | 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".