Bone marrow stimulation of the medial femoral condyle produces inferior cartilage and bone repair compared to the trochlea in a rabbit surgical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of the location of cartilage lesions on cartilage repair outcome is incompletely understood. This study compared cartilage and bone repair in medial femoral condylar (MFC) versus femoral trochlear (TR) defects 3 months after bone marrow stimulation in mature rabbits. Intact femurs from adult rabbits served as controls. Results from quantitative histomorphometry and histological scoring showed that bone marrow stimulation produced inferior soft tissue repair in MFC versus TR defects, as indicated by significantly lower % Fill (p = 0.03), a significant increase in collagen type I immunostaining (p < 0.00001) and lower O'Driscoll scores (p < 0.05). 3D micro-CT analysis showed that repaired TR defects regained normal un-operated values of bone volume fraction, trabecular thickness, and trabecular number, whereas in MFC defects the repaired bone architecture appeared immature and less dense compared to intact un-operated MFC controls (p < 0.0001). Severe medial meniscal damage was found in 28% of operated animals and was strongly correlated with (i) low cartilage defect fill, (ii) incomplete bone repair in MFC, and (iii) with a more posterior defect placement in the weight-bearing region. We conclude that the location of cartilage lesions influences cartilage repair, with better outcome in TR versus MFC defects in rabbits. Meniscal degeneration is associated with cartilage damage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".