MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159689193 · doi:10.1007/s10856-021-06527-5

In vivo analysis of a proprietary glass-based adhesive for sternal fixation and stabilization using rabbit and sheep models

2021· article· en· W3159689193 on OpenAlexafffund
Cina Mehrvar, Emily Deignan, Mark Hurtig, Gideon Cohen, Paul Zalzal, Oleg Safir, Adel Alhalawani, M. Papini, Mark R. Towler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Materials in Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversityMount Sinai HospitalOakville-Trafalgar Memorial HospitalSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of GuelphToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMaterials scienceFixation (population genetics)In vivoBiomedical engineeringResorptionBiocompatibilityAdhesiveFemurSurgeryComposite materialMedicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:0.48, ZnO:0.36, CaO:0.12, SrO:0.04) has been used to formulate GPC+, a glass polyalkenoate cement (GPC), by mixing it with poly(acrylic) acid (PAA) and de-ionized water. In a human cadaver study, this material, when applied with wire cerclage, was able to significantly reduce sternal instability. However, the material has yet to be tested in pertinent animal models. Here, after a series of physical and mechanical tests to confirm suitability of the experimental material for implantation, three samples of GPC+ were implanted in either the tibia or femur of three different rabbits, alongside sham defects, for two different time modalities. A further seven samples of GPC+ and one poly(methyl methacrylate) control (PMMA) were implanted in either the tibia or femur of two different sheep. The sheep containing the PMMA was sacrificed at 8 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, to evaluate time dependent biological response. Upon sacrifice, microCT images were acquired and histology slides prepared for analysis. All three GPC+ samples implanted in the rabbit model, for the two time modalities, were characterized by minimal bone resorption along with a mild inflammatory response. Five of the seven GPC+ materials implanted in the sheep model (all three implanted for 8 weeks and two of those implanted for 16 weeks) were associated with mild to moderate immune response, comparable to that observed with PMMA, as well as mild bone resorption. The remaining two GPC + materials (implanted in the sheep model for 16 weeks) exhibited no bone resorption or inflammatory response and appeared to stimulate increased bone density at the implant site. These results suggest that GPC + can be a viable bone adhesive for use in hard tissue applications such as sternal fixation and stabilization. Experiments performed to synthesize & test Sr-doped glass adhesive for sternal fixation. (1) Sr-doped ionomeric glass fired, ground down and mixed with aqueous polyacrylic acid to produce the adhesive. (2) Adhesive characterized and tested by a suite of laboratory-based tests to ensure suitability for implantation. (3) Adhesive implanted into a rabbit model (distal femur, 12 weeks post implantation) where micro-CT images confirmed an excellent bone/cement interface, no evidence of bone resorption and some bone remodelling. (4) Adhesive subsequently implanted into a sheep model; at 16-weeks, a continuous bone-adhesive interface is seen suggesting no bone resorption. There was an increase in the peri-implant radiodensity, suggesting enhanced mineral content of the bone surrounding the GPC+ implant.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science Materials in MedicineSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207