Bone formation by human umbilical cord perivascular cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the possibility of employing human umbilical perivascular cells (HUCPVCs) within the context of finding an alternative source of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) for bone tissue engineering. Since it has previously been reported that conditioned medium (CM) from osteogenic bone marrow (BM) MSCs can potentiate osteogenic differentiation in a secondary cell population, we also employed BM-MSCs to generate CM to stimulate osteogenesis in the HUCPVCs. The BM-MSCs were a commercially available immortalized human cell line. In vitro assays showed negligible levels of osteogenic gene expression in HUCPVCs compared to BM-MSC, but alkaline phosphatase was detected when HUCPVC were cultured in osteogenic medium in the presence of CM from BM-MSC. An in vivo assay employing a rat calvarial osteotomy defect, together with a collagen sponge scaffold, showed that HUCPVCs provided statistically significant bony repair compared to controls. BM-MSC loaded scaffolds were not statistically different from either controls or HUCPVCs. The addition of BM-MSC CM to HUCPVCs also produced no statistically significant difference to the bone formed by HUCPVCs alone. Our results demonstrate that the in vitro assays employed did not predict in vivo outcomes, and that the BM-MSC cell line employed, or CM from such cells, provided no osteogenic advantage over the use of HUCPVCs alone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".