MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3131586924 · doi:10.1089/3dp.2020.0140

Three-Dimensional Printing of Calcium Carbonate/Hydroxyapatite Scaffolds at Low Temperature for Bone Tissue Engineering

2021· article· en· W3131586924 on OpenAlexaff
Tiandi Wang, Jianchao Zheng, Tianzhou Hu, Hongbo Zhang, Kun Fu, Ruixue Yin, Wenjun Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venue3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScaffoldBiocompatibilityMaterials scienceTissue engineeringBone tissueBiomedical engineeringArtificial boneNanotechnologyComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has been applied to fabricate bone tissue engineering scaffolds for a wide range of materials with precisely control over scaffold structures. Coral is a potential bone repair and bone replacement material. Due to the natural source limitation of coral, we developed a fabrication protocol for 3D printing of calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ) nanoparticles for coral replacement in the application of bone tissue engineering. Up to 80% of CaCO 3 nanoparticles can be printed with high resolution using poly- l -lactide as a blender. The scaffolds were subjected to a controlled hydrothermal process for incomplete conversion of carbonate to phosphate to produce CaCO 3 scaffold covered by hydroxyapatite (HA) to modify the biocompatibility and degradation of CaCO 3 /HA scaffolds. X-ray diffraction and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy showed that HA was converted and attached to the surface of the scaffold, and the surface morphology and microstructure were studied using a scanning electron microscope. To confirm the bone regeneration performance of the scaffold, cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of MC3T3 cells on the scaffold were evaluated. In addition, in vivo experiments showed that CaCO 3 /HA scaffolds can promote bone growth and repairing process and has high potential in bone tissue engineering. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: SH9H-2020-A603

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue3D Printing and Additive ManufacturingSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207