MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026561455 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.37012

In vitro evaluation of novel titania‐containing borate bioactive glass scaffolds

2020· article· en· W3026561455 on OpenAlexafffund
Romina Shafaghi, Omar Rodriguez, Anthony W. Wren, Loraine L. Y. Chiu, Emil H. Schemitsch, Paul Zalzal, Stephen D. Waldman, M. Papini, Mark R. Towler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityToronto Metropolitan UniversityHamilton Health SciencesSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityOakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsViability assayBioactive glassMaterials scienceIn vivoMTT assayIn vitroScaffoldCell growthBorate glassStaphylococcus epidermidisCellStaphylococcus aureusBiomedical engineeringChemistryBacteriaBiochemistryBiologyMedicineComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Titanium‐containing borate bioactive glass scaffolds (0, 5, 15, and 20 mol %, identified as BRT0, BRT1, BRT3, and BRT4) with a microstructure similar to that of human trabecular bone were prepared and evaluated in vitro for potential bone loss applications in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) cell viability assays of scaffold ion release extracts revealed that BRT0 scaffolds (0 mol % titanium) inhibited cell proliferation and activity at day 14. At day 30, all scaffold extracts decreased cell proliferation and activity significantly. However, live/dead cell assay results demonstrated that degradation products from all the scaffolds had no inhibitory effect on cell viability. Significant bactericidal efficacies of BRT3 extracts against Escherishia coli (Gram‐negative) and BRT1 extracts against Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis (both Gram‐positive bacteria) were demonstrated. Finally, evaluation of the cell/bioactive glass surface interactions showed well‐spread cells on the surface of the BRT3 glass discs and BRT1 and BRT3 scaffolds, when compared to BRT0 and BRT4 scaffolds. The results indicate that by changing the Ti 4+ :B 3+ ratio, the ion release and consequently cell proliferation could be improved. in vitro results in this study demonstrate that BRT3 scaffolds could be a promising candidate for addressing bone loss in rTKAs; however, in vivo studies would be required to evaluate the effect of a dynamic environment on the cell and tissue response to the fabricated scaffolds.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207