MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148715552

Reconstruction of 10 major mandibular defects using bioimplants containing BMP-7.

2008· article· en· W2148715552 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron M. L. Clokie, George K.B. Sándor

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmeloblastomaBone graftingdBmMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Bone morphogenetic proteinOsteomyelitisResectionDentistryRadiographySurgeryMaterials scienceBiologyMolar
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The limitations and morbidity associated with autogenous bone grafting have driven the search for predictable bone substitutes and bioimplants. A novel method of reconstruction was tested in this case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with major mandibular defects following resection of biopsy-proven ameloblastoma lesions or osteomyelitis of the mandibular body or ramus were included in this study. The resection defects were spanned with rigid reconstruction plates to hold the remaining mandibular segments in the correct position. The defects were filled with a bioimplant containing bone morphogenetic protein-7 (BMP-7) in a demineralized bone matrix (DBM) suspended in a reverse-phase medium to effect sustained BMP delivery. RESULTS: The postoperative course for all 10 patients was uneventful. Radiographic evidence of mandibular bone formation was found in all cases. At the end of 1 year, functional and esthetic reconstruction of the mandible was complete. CONCLUSION: Bioimplants containing BMP-7 in DBM suspended in a reverse phase medium were successful in restoring major mandibular defects in nonirradiated beds in this series of 10 patients.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations98
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207