MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305094949 · doi:10.1111/jopr.12465

Dental Applications of Natural‐Origin Polymers in Hard and Soft Tissue Engineering

2016· review· en· W2305094949 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hossein E. Jazayeri, Mina D. Fahmy, Mehdi Razavi, Brett E. Stein, Aatif Nowman, Radi Masri, Lobat Tayebi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStrategic Innovation FundMarquette University
KeywordsRegenerative medicineTissue engineeringHard tissueTissue repairRegeneration (biology)Process (computing)Stem cellNatural polymersMedicineBiomedical engineeringDentistryMaterials scienceBiologyComputer sciencePolymerCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical advances in the treatment of dentoalveolar defects continue to evolve with the introduction of new innovations in regenerative medicine and tissue bioengineering. Recent developments in tissue engineering are aimed at safely and effectively regenerating a damaged or necrotic area by replenishing its cells and increasing surrounding gene expression. Various techniques have successfully given rise to porous scaffolds being used by clinicians to treat the defect and initiate the repair process. Tissue reconstruction using bioengineered scaffolds is advantageous over traditional autografting, since it prevents the instigation of pain and donor site morbidity while ultimately creating both the environment and machinery needed to induce cell proliferation, migration, and reattachment within the affected area. This review article aims to describe and review the available literature regarding the regenerative capacity of natural polymers used for the treatment of dentoalveolar defects. The repair mechanisms, advantages of protein and polysaccharide derivatives, and the potential of stem cell therapy are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ProsthodonticsSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207