MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130213199 · doi:10.1002/mabi.202000365

Biomaterial Properties Modulating Bone Regeneration

2021· review· en· W3130213199 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacromolecular Bioscience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomaterialRegeneration (biology)Tissue engineeringChemistryBone healingScaffoldBiomedical engineeringCell biologyMaterials scienceNanotechnologyBiologyMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomaterial scaffolds have been gaining momentum in the past several decades for their potential applications in the area of tissue engineering. They function as three-dimensional porous constructs to temporarily support the attachment of cells, subsequently influencing cell behaviors such as proliferation and differentiation to repair or regenerate defective tissues. In addition, scaffolds can also serve as delivery vehicles to achieve sustained release of encapsulated growth factors or therapeutic agents to further modulate the regeneration process. Given the limitations of current bone grafts used clinically in bone repair, alternatives such as biomaterial scaffolds have emerged as potential bone graft substitutes. This review summarizes how physicochemical properties of biomaterial scaffolds can influence cell behavior and its downstream effect, particularly in its application to bone regeneration.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.221 · 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