MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Additively manufactured metallic biomaterials

2021· review· en· W4200078716 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioactive Materials · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsScaffoldBiocompatible materialMaterials scienceNanotechnologyTissue engineeringComputer scienceDurabilityPorosityFabricationMechanical engineeringManufacturing engineeringBiomedical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal additive manufacturing (AM) has led to an evolution in the design and fabrication of hard tissue substitutes, enabling personalized implants to address each patient's specific needs. In addition, internal pore architectures integrated within additively manufactured scaffolds, have provided an opportunity to further develop and engineer functional implants for better tissue integration, and long-term durability. In this review, the latest advances in different aspects of the design and manufacturing of additively manufactured metallic biomaterials are highlighted. After introducing metal AM processes, biocompatible metals adapted for integration with AM machines are presented. Then, we elaborate on the tools and approaches undertaken for the design of porous scaffold with engineered internal architecture including, topology optimization techniques, as well as unit cell patterns based on lattice networks, and triply periodic minimal surface. Here, the new possibilities brought by the functionally gradient porous structures to meet the conflicting scaffold design requirements are thoroughly discussed. Subsequently, the design constraints and physical characteristics of the additively manufactured constructs are reviewed in terms of input parameters such as design features and AM processing parameters. We assess the proposed applications of additively manufactured implants for regeneration of different tissue types and the efforts made towards their clinical translation. Finally, we conclude the review with the emerging directions and perspectives for further development of AM in the medical industry.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.239 · 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