Cytotoxicity of novel hybrid composite materials for making bone fracture plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone fracture plates are usually made from steel or titanium, which are much stiffer than cortical bone. This may cause bone 'stress shielding' (i.e. bone resorption leading to plate loosening) and delayed fracture healing (i.e. fracture motion is less than needed to stimulate callus formation at the fracture). Thus, the authors previously designed, fabricated, and mechanically tested novel 'hybrid' composites made from inorganic and organic materials as potential bone fracture plates that are more flexible to reduce these negative effects. This is the first study to measure the cytotoxicity of these composites via the survival of rat cells. Cubes of carbon fiber/flax fiber/epoxy and glass fiber/flax fiber/epoxy had better cell survival vs. Kevlar fiber/flax fiber/epoxy (57% and 58% vs. 50%). Layers and powders made of carbon fiber/epoxy and glass fiber/epoxy had higher cell survival than Kevlar fiber/epoxy (96%-100% and 100% vs. 39%-90%). The presence of flax fibers usually decreased cell survival. Thus, carbon and glass fiber composites (with or without flax fibers), but not Kevlar fiber composites (with or without flax fibers), may potentially be used for bone fracture plates.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".