Bone regeneration and infiltration of an anisotropic composite scaffold: an experimental study of rabbit cranial defect repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue formation on scaffold outer edges after implantation may restrict cell infiltration and mass transfer to/from the scaffold center due to insufficient interconnectivity, leading to incidence of a necrotic core. Herein, a nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide66 (n-HA/PA66) anisotropic scaffold with axially aligned channels was prepared with the aim to enhance pore interconnectivity. Bone tissue regeneration and infiltration inside of scaffold were assessed by rabbit cranial defect repair experiments. The amount of newly formed bone inside of anisotropic scaffold was much higher than isotropic scaffold, e.g., after 12 weeks, the new bone volume in the inner pores was greater in the anisotropic scaffolds (>50%) than the isotropic scaffolds (<30%). The results suggested that anisotropic scaffolds could accelerate the inducement of bone ingrowth into the inner pores in the non-load-bearing bone defects compared to isotropic scaffolds. Thus, anisotropic scaffolds hold promise for the application in bone tissue engineering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".