P.096 Evaluation of Poly Vinyl Alcohol Cryogel (PVA-C) composites for mimicking biomechanical properties of the lumbar interverterbral disc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current lumbar intervertebral disc prostheses provide suboptimal symptom relief with little natural load-cushioning. PVA-C is a promising biocompatible material, and our previous study finds that it can closely mimic the properties of nucleus pulposus. However, pure PVA-C does not possess adequate stiffness to mimic the annulus fibrosus. Methods: Composite particle-reinforced PVA-C formulations were tested to identify methods that could increase the elastic modulus. This included: sephadex, hydroxyapatite (stock) and hydroxyapatite (in-solution synthesis). All formulations were tested using 15% PVA-C and 5% reinforcing agent. Indentation and durometer tests were performed as well as simple compression, compressive stress relaxation and creep. Results: Indentation and durometer results did not clearly reveal any specific formulations that significantly improved stiffness. The addition of in-solution synthesized hydroxyapatite resulted in 1.15 to 2 time increase in elastic modulus (0.3-0.9 MPa) and associated decrease in stress relaxation and creep. The addition of stock hydroxyapatite and spehadex (G100f and G50sf) lowered the elastic modulus and increased stress relaxation and creep. Conclusions: In-solution synthesized hydroxyapatite is the only particle-reinforced composite PVA-C formulation that exhibited greater stiffness than pure PVA-C. The elastic modulus will need to be increased by 5-10x to adequately mimic the annulus fibrosus. A fiber-reinforced composite will likely be needed to accomplish this.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".