MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555858253 · doi:10.1039/c6ra24642g

Oxidatively degradable poly(thioketal urethane)/ceramic composite bone cements with bone-like strength

2016· article· en· W2555858253 on OpenAlexaff
Madison A.P. McEnery, Sichang Lu, Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Katarzyna J. Zienkiewicz, Joseph C. Wenke, Kerem N. Kalpakci, Daniel A. Shimko, Craig L. Duvall, Scott A. Guelcher

Bibliographic record

VenueRSC Advances · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMedtronic (Canada)
FundersMedical Research and Materiel CommandDivision of Graduate EducationNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesU.S. Department of EnergyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComposite numberCeramicMaterials scienceComposite materialChemical engineeringChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When combined with ceramic micro- or nanoparticles, PTKUR cements exhibited working times comparable to calcium phosphate cements and strengths exceeding those of trabecular bone. PTKUR/ceramic composite cements supported appositional bone growth and integrated with host bone near the bone-cement interface at 6 and 12 weeks post-implantation in rabbit femoral condyle plug defects. Histological evidence of osteoclast-mediated resorption of the cements was observed at 6 and 12 weeks. These findings demonstrate that a PTKUR bone cement with bone-like strength can be selectively resorbed by cells involved in bone remodeling, and thus represent an important initial step toward the development of resorbable bone cements for weight-bearing applications.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRSC AdvancesSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207