MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414081830 · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.35620

Development and Characterization of a Sardine Scale‐Chitosan Biomaterial: In Vivo Evaluation for Bone Regeneration in a Rat Osteoporosis Model

2025· article· en· W4414081830 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nada Hamrouni, Hassane Oudadesse, Bertrand Lefeuvre, Elodie Bouvret, Sterenn Le Penven

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRégion BretagneInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsBiomaterialBiocompatible materialIn vivoOsteoporosisRegeneration (biology)Bone healingSardineBone tissue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The development of functional materials for osteoporosis is essential for effective bone remodeling. In this context, the extraction of biocompatible implantable biomaterials from bio‐waste emerges as a valuable strategy, addressing both environmental challenges and promoting human health. The objective of this work was to evaluate the physicochemical properties of the added‐value by‐product biomaterial (SS‐90), extracted from sardine scales ( Sardina Pilchardus ) and combined with chitosan (SS‐90‐CH). Besides, the efficacy of both biomaterials for bone regeneration was evaluated through in vitro and in vivo tests. The physicochemical characteristics of the biomaterials were demonstrated by ICP‐OES, TGA, XRD, FTIR, and SEM‐EDS analyses. Their characteristic features were compared with pure commercial hydroxyapatite (HA syn ) and associated with chitosan (HA syn ‐CH). ICP‐OES analysis evidenced the presence of Ca, P, Mg, Na, Sr, and Zn in SS‐90 with a molar ratio (Ca/P) of 1.84 near to that of synthetic hydroxyapatite (1.67). The FTIR spectrum confirmed the presence of carbonate and phosphate functional groups in SS‐90, which is similar to healthy rat bone (HRB). In vitro, SS‐90 and SS‐90‐CH biomaterials demonstrated no cytotoxicity, maintaining cell viability between 80% and 100% for SaOS‐2, L929, and LIG cells after 72 h of incubation. Furthermore, these biomaterials were implanted into bone defects in femoral condyles of osteoporotic rats to evaluate their effectiveness in bone fracture repair under osteoporotic conditions. Physicochemical, biochemical, and histological studies conducted at different time intervals after implantation indicated that the biomaterials could effectively promote bone regeneration. In conclusion, the present study highlights that SS‐90 and SS‐90‐CH biomaterials are promising solutions for repairing bone defects or fractures under osteoporotic conditions, combining the valorization of marine bio‐waste with biomedical 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)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied BiomaterialsSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207