MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312123915 · doi:10.3390/jmmp6060158

Laser-Based Additive Manufacturing of Magnesium Alloys for Bone Tissue Engineering Applications: From Chemistry to Clinic

2022· article· en· W4312123915 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Ghasemian Fard, Fariborz Sharifianjazi, Sanam Sadat Kazemi, Hosein Rostamani, Masoud Soroush Bathaei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocompatible materialTitaniumMagnesiumMaterials scienceSelective laser meltingBiomedical engineeringLaserTissue engineeringNanotechnologyMetallurgyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metallic biomedical implants are made from materials such as stainless steel, titanium, magnesium, and cobalt-based alloys. As a degradable biometal, magnesium (Mg) and its alloys are becoming more popular for applications in bone tissue engineering. Mg-based alloys have been found to be biocompatible, bioabsorbable, and bioactive, allowing them to be used as orthopedic implants with a low Young’s modulus. Computer-aided design can be used to design scaffolds with intricate porous structures based on patient-specific anatomical data. These models can be materialized rapidly and with reasonably acceptable dimensional accuracy by additive manufacturing (AM) techniques. It is known that lasers are the most widely investigated energy source for AM’ed Mg, as they offer some distinct advantages over other forms of energy. Recent studies have focused on developing biodegradable Mg scaffolds by using laser-based AM techniques. In this paper, we aim to review the recent progress of laser-based AM for Mg alloys and survey challenges in the research and future development of AM’ed Mg scaffolds for clinical applications.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207