Ultrasonic assessment of osseointegration phenomena at the bone-implant interface using convolutional neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although endosseous implants are widely used in the clinic, failures still occur and their clinical performance depends on the quality of osseointegration phenomena at the bone-implant interface (BII), which are given by bone ingrowth around the BII. The difficulties in ensuring clinical reliability come from the complex nature of this interphase related to the implant surface roughness and the presence of a soft tissue layer (non-mineralized bone tissue) at the BII. The aim of the present study is to develop a method to assess the soft tissue thickness at the BII based on the analysis of its ultrasonic response using a simulation based-convolution neural network (CNN). A large-annotated dataset was constructed using a two-dimensional finite element model in the frequency domain considering a sinusoidal description of the BII. The proposed network was trained by the synthesized ultrasound responses and was validated by a separate dataset from the training process. The linear correlation between actual and estimated soft tissue thickness shows excellent R2 values equal to 99.52% and 99.65% and a narrow limit of agreement corresponding to [ –2.56, 4.32 μm] and [ –15.75, 30.35 μm] of microscopic and macroscopic roughness, respectively, supporting the reliability of the proposed assessment of osseointegration phenomena.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".