MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903825382 · doi:10.3390/ma11122561

The Effect of Surface Treatments on the Degradation of Biomedical Mg Alloys—A Review Paper

2018· review· en· W2903825382 on OpenAlexaff
Marcjanna Maria Gawlik, Björn Wiese, Valérie Desharnais, Thomas Ebel, Regine Willumeit‐Römer

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnesium Alloys: Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurface roughnessMaterials scienceDegradation (telecommunications)AlloySurface finishMetallurgyMorphology (biology)Composite materialGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report reviews the effects of chemical, physical, and mechanical surface treatments on the degradation behavior of Mg alloys via their influence on the roughness and surface morphology. Many studies have been focused on technically-used AZ alloys and a few investigations regarding the surface treatment of biodegradable and Al-free Mg alloys, especially under physiological conditions. These treatments tailor the surface roughness, homogenize the morphology, and decrease the degradation rate of the alloys. Conversely, there have also been reports which showed that rough surfaces lead to less pitting and good cell adherence. Besides roughness, there are many other parameters which are much more important than roughness when regarding the degradation behavior of an alloy. These studies, which indicate the relationship between surface treatments, roughness and degradation, require further elaboration, particularly for biomedical Mg alloy 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMagnesium Alloys: Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207