ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2024
Best Practices in Developing a Workflow for Uncertainty Quantification for Modeling the Biodegradation of Mg-Based Implants.
Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Structural Optimization Framework for Biodegradable Magnesium Interference Screws.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Computational modelling of bone growth and mineralization surrounding biodegradable Mg-based and permanent Ti implants.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Best Practices in Developing a Workflow for Uncertainty Quantification for Modeling the Biodegradation of Mg-Based Implants.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational models of electrochemical biodegradation of magnesium (Mg)-based implants are uncertain. To quantify the model uncertainty, iterative evaluations are needed. This presents a challenge, especially for complex, multiscale models as is the case here. Approximating high-cost and complex models with easy-to-evaluate surrogate models can reduce the computational burden. However, the application of this approach to complex degradation models remains limited and understudied. This work provides a workflow to quantify different types of uncertainty within biodegradation models. Three surrogate models-Kriging, polynomial chaos expansion, and polynomial chaos Kriging-are compared based on the minimum number of samples required for surrogate model construction, surrogate model accuracy, and computational time. The surrogate models are tested for three computational models representing Mg-based implant biodegradation. Global sensitivity analysis and uncertainty propagation are used to analyze the uncertainties associated with the different models. The findings indicate that Kriging proves effective for calibrating diverse computational models with minimal computational time and cost, while polynomial chaos expansion and polynomial chaos Kriging exhibit greater capability in predicting propagated uncertainties within the computational models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.