Microfluidic device with a carbonate‐rich hydroxyapatite micro‐coating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A contiguous carbonate‐rich hydroxyapatite microcoating in a microfluidic device represents a substrate that has chemical and structural similarity to bone mineral. The present work describes a low‐temperature method to deposit a carbonate‐rich hydroxyapatite microcoating on a glass slide and its incorporation within the microchannels of a microfluidic device. A glass slide is covered/masked with polypropylene‐based tape and CaCO 3 nanoparticles are deposited on exposed areas by convective self assembly. The precursor CaCO 3 is converted to carbonate‐rich hydroxyapatite by dissolution‐recrystallization in phosphate‐buffered saline. The microcoating is aligned/incorporated within a microchannel when the underlying glass is bonded to a polydimethylsiloxane structure with the device layout. X‐ray diffraction, laser Raman microspectroscopy, and X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy indicate that the microcoating was comprised of carbonate‐rich hydroxyapatite. Scanning electron microscopy and 3D laser confocal microscopy showed that was comprised of nanocrystalline rod‐like clusters that collectively exhibit a thickness of ∼20 µm. Monocultures/cocultures of osteoblast‐lineage (MC3T3‐E1, MG63) and preosteoclast‐lineage (RAW 264.7) cells were performed. Osteoblast‐lineage cells adhered to the microcoating and deposited an extracellular matrix of collagen fibrils and mineral accretions. Mineralization was detected in/near the inlet wells. The microcoating is analogous to bone mineral and could be applied to various layouts and mineral systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".