Impact of aging on bioglass foam structure and properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of Purpose: Bioactive glasses have been used for many years as bone graft substitutes in orthopedic and dental applications, in the form of powders, granules, pastes and putties. They are resorbable and allow to stimulate more bone regeneration compared to other ceramics. Although they contain many benefits needed for bone reconstruction, 3D bioglass scaffolds have limited mechanical properties. Consequently, a bioactive glass-derived 3D scaffold with appropriate structure and properties for bone reconstruction was recently developed. During storage of the material, it was noted that filamentous crystals were growing on the surface. The phenomenon progressed when subjected to accelerated aging. Further investigation revealed the presence of sodium and calcium carbonates deriving from the reaction of glass with CO2 and humidity. While investigating the formation of these crystals, it was noticed that limited information was available on the stability of bioglass when exposed to different storage conditions. In this study, we investigated the evolution of chemical species grown on foam surface at different aging time points and how the properties of the Bioglass® foam were affected by their presence.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".