MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411404139 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.06.142

Using the Box-Behnken experimental design to improve the biocompatibility of the powder Ti–TiB2 composite through laser surface treatment

2025· article· en· W4411404139 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter F. Sugar, Richard Antala, Jana Šugárová, Jaroslav Kováčik, Filip Ferenčík

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSlovenská technická univerzita v BratislaveVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVKultúrna a Edukacná Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SRSt. Thomas University
KeywordsMaterials scienceBox–Behnken designBiocompatibilityComposite numberResponse surface methodologyLaserComposite materialNanotechnologyMetallurgyChromatographyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: The paper deals with the surface functionalization of a biocompatible powder-based composite Ti-TiB 2 prepared by spark plasma sintering, applying the fiber nanosecond laser working at 1064 nm wavelength in an ambient atmosphere. The influence of the laser pulse energy (E P ), laser beam spot overlap (O L), and laser beam trace overlap (O T ) on the integrity of the laser-treated surfaces was studied using the Box-Behnken experimental design (BBD) in order to maximize the surface osseointegration-relevant properties. The SEM analysis, surface roughness measurement, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, static contact angle measurement, and X-ray diffraction analysis were conducted to identify the surface topography, morphology, chemistry, and wettability. Finally, the multiple analysis of variance (ANOVA) and RSM methodology were performed to optimize the laser treatment parameters. Applying the second-order polynomial model, the optimal combination of process parameters was set as follows: E P = 0.3 mJ, O L = -12%, and O T = 40%. The confirmation test showed very high prediction accuracy of the surface roughness and chemistry but low prediction accuracy of the surface wettability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207