Theoretical and experimental approach to test the cohesion of calcium phosphate pastes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have revealed that the ability of a calcium phosphate cement paste to harden in a physiological environment without desintegrating into small particles might be a key property to ensure a safe and reliable clinical use of calcium phosphate cements. However, this property called cohesion is not well understood and has not been studied extensively. The goal of the present study was to better understand which factors affect the cohesion of a calcium phosphate paste using the combination of a theoretical and experimental approach. In the theoretical approach, factors expected to influence the paste cohesion such as Van der Waals forces, electrostatic and steric interactions, as well as osmotic effects were listed and discussed. In the experimental approach, a new method to measure the cohesion of a non-setting calcium phosphate paste was presented and used to assess the effects of various factors on this property. The new method allowed a continuous measurement of cohesion and gave reproducible results. The experimental results confirmed the theoretical predictions: an increase of the liquid-to-powder ratio of the paste and of the powder particle size, as well as the addition of citrate ions and in limited cases dissolved xanthan polymer chains reduced the paste cohesion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".