Chiral Tartaric Acid Improves Fracture Toughness of Bioactive Brushite–Collagen Bone Cements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brushite cements are promising bone regeneration materials with limited biological and mechanical properties. Here, we engineer a mechanically improved brushite-collagen type I cement with enhanced biological properties by use of chiral chemistry; d- and l-tartaric acid were used to limit crystal growth and increase the mechanical properties of brushite-collagen cements. The impact of the chiral molecules on the cements was examined with Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A 3-point bend test was utilized to study the fracture toughness, and cell attachment and morphology studies were carried out to demonstrate biocompatibility. XRD and SEM analyses showed that l-, but not d-tartaric acid, significantly restrained brushite crystal growth by binding to the {010} plane of the mineral and increased brushite crystal packing and the collagen interaction area. l-Tartaric acid significantly improved fracture toughness compared to traditional brushite by 30%. Collagen significantly enhanced cell morphology and focal adhesion expression on l-tartaric acid-treated brushite cements.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it