Distraction osteogenesis is inhibited by cancer radiotherapy with Co 60
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effects of radiotherapy on distraction osteogenesis performed on the same bone in an area that has not received radiation. Radiotherapy (Co60) was carried out in a region where tumors may develop, and then, on the assumption that the tumoral region had been removed, distraction osteogenesis was carried out, and the effects were investigated. METHOD: Thirty New Zealand rabbits were randomized into two groups, a study group (15 rabbits) and a control group (15 rabbits). In the study group, Co60 was administered by teletherapy to the distal half of the left tibia. Rabbits in the control group were kept in the same environment for the same period, but were not subjected to radiotherapy. Four weeks after radiotherapy, osteotomy was performed on the proximal part of the left tibia of all subjects, and distraction was carried out until 10mm. After distraction was completed, the outcomes were evaluated radiologically, scintigraphically, and histopathologically, and the results were compared. RESULTS: New bone formation achieved through distraction osteogenesis in the study group animals was inadequate, while new bone tissue achieved in the control group was superior (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy has a negative effect on distraction osteogenesis, even if performed on a different part of the bone.
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) | 0.002 | 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".