Initially, I thought someone had poured black paint over them 💀

Spotted in Ekenäs, Finland 🇫🇮 recently.

Can you "untrain" medical AI that has been trained on data in papers that eventually get retracted? 🤔

And soon after, you run into peer-reviewers who will try to make sure that nobody in the world ever gets to know...... 😜😆

The study underscores the importance of material composition on bone quality, not just quantity, and raises important questions about the fate of phagocytosed, non-resorbable particles in vivo.

🧵 6/6

These findings are highly relevant for the development of next-generation bone graft substitutes, especially in craniofacial and maxillofacial reconstruction, where synthetic materials must balance bioactivity with long-term stability.

🧵 5/6

The materials were designed to enable controlled degradation and bone formation in non-osseous environments. The inclusion of Ca-PP—a known mineralisation inhibitor—was of particular interest due to a dual role in both promoting and potentially impairing bone quality.

🧵 4/6

These materials were tested in a subcutaneous sheep model to evaluate their osteoconductive and osteoinductive potential, as well as their long-term degradation behaviour.

🧵 3/6

This study investigates a series of multi-phase calcium phosphate (CaP) biomaterials composed of monetite, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), and varying concentrations of calcium pyrophosphate (Ca-PP) (0–12.5%).

🧵 2/6

I suppose, unless you’ve clearly stated that you disagree with the message or content of a shared article, people have a tendency of doing that under the assumption that your views are in agreement / alignment with the message of the shared article (regardless of who the author is).