Glass, Ceramic, Polymeric, and Composite Scaffolds with Multiscale Porosity for Bone Tissue Engineering
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porosity affects performance of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering both in vitro and in vivo. Macropores (i.e., pores with a diameter >100 μm) are essential for cellular infiltration; micropores (i.e., pores with a diameter of 1–10 μm) promote cell adhesion and facilitate nutrient absorption. Scaffolds containing both macropores and micropores exploit the advantages of both pore sizes and have excellent osteogenic properties. Nanopores (i.e., pores with a diameter of 1–50 nm) can be included as well, to improve cell–material interactions by further enhancing the surface area of the scaffold. This article reviews fabrication techniques and properties of scaffolds with multiscale porosity, focusing on glass, ceramic, polymeric, and composite scaffolds. After discussing the structure of bone and how it inspired scaffolds for bone tissue engineering, pore nomenclature is introduced. Then, the techniques used to induce multiscale porosity, the nature of the pores created, and the effects of scaffold porosity on mechanical properties and biological activity of the scaffolds are discussed. The review concludes by providing an outlook for this field, including advancements that are made possible by computational modeling and artificial intelligence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it