Evaluation of a biodegradable scaffold for the treatment of a diaphyseal bone defect of the tibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare angiogenesis and osteogenesis occurring within a bone defect of the tibia treated using autograft or a biodegradable bone scaffold. A diaphyseal tibia defect was created in a canine model and fixed with a statically locked intramedullary nail. Three treatment groups were studied: (1) defect empty, (2) defect treated with autograft, and (3) defect treated with scaffold. Samples were perfused with a barium compound to assess angiogenesis. Samples were analyzed using radiographs, Micro CT, brightfield microscopy and fluorescent microscopy. Extensive reaming was found to adversely affect angiogenesis and osteogenesis within an untreated tibial defect. Nonunion between osteotomy sites and intervening bone graft was observed in many of the defect sites treated with acute autogenous bone grafting. Use of a biodegradable scaffold was shown to enhance angiogenesis and osteogenesis at the osteotomy sites in this canine tibial defect model.
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) | 0.000 | 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".