MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891335938 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32325-1

Mechanical loading, an important factor in the evaluation of ion release from bone augmentation materials

2018· article· en· W2891335938 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathleen MacDonald, Daniel Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsKineticsMaterials scienceIonDegradation (telecommunications)StrontiumComposite numberControlled releaseDynamic loadingComposite materialBiomedical engineeringBiophysicsChemistryChemical engineeringNanotechnologyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The controlled release of therapeutic inorganic ions from biomaterials is an emerging area of international research. One of the foci for this research is the development of materials, which spatially and temporally modulate therapeutic release, via controlled degradation in the intended physiological environment. Crucially however, our understanding of the release kinetics for such systems remains limited, particularly with respect to the influence of physiological loading. Consequently, this study was designed to investigate the effect of dynamic mechanical loading on a composite material intended to stabilize, reinforce and strengthen vertebral bodies. The composite material contains a borate glass engineered to release strontium as a therapeutic inorganic ion at clinically relevant levels over extended time periods. It was observed that both cyclic (6 MPa 2 Hz) and static (4.3 MPa) compressive loading significantly increased the release of strontium ions in comparison to the static unloaded case. The observed alterations in ion release kinetics suggest that the mechanical loading of the implantation environment should be considered when evaluating the ion release kinetics.

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)0.002
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207