MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968717702 · doi:10.1177/154405910808700907

Matrix Gla Protein Inhibition of Tooth Mineralization

2008· article· en· W1968717702 on OpenAlexafffund
Neelambar R. Kaipatur, Monzur Murshed, Marc D. McKee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCementumMineralization (soil science)DentinDentinogenesisOdontoblastDental alveolusChemistryMineralized tissuesExtracellular matrixDentistryOsteoblastMatrix gla proteinAnatomyCell biologyBiologyCalciumBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracellular matrix (ECM) mineralization is regulated by mineral ion availability, proteins, and other molecular determinants. To investigate protein regulation of mineralization in tooth dentin and cementum, and in alveolar bone, we expressed matrix Gla protein (MGP) ectopically in bones and teeth in mice, using an osteoblast/odontoblast-specific 2.3-kb Col1a1 promoter. Mandibles were analyzed by radiography, micro-computed tomography, light microscopy, histomorphometry, and transmission electron microscopy. While bone and tooth ECMs were established in the Col1a1-Mgp mice, extensive hypomineralization was observed, with values of unmineralized ECM from four- to eight-fold higher in dentin and alveolar bone when compared with that in wild-type tissues. Mineralization was virtually absent in tooth root dentin and cellular cementum, while crown dentin showed "breakthrough" areas of mineralization. Acellular cementum was lacking in Col1a1-Mgp teeth, and unmineralized osteodentin formed within the pulp. These results strengthen the view that bone and tooth mineralization is critically regulated by mineralization inhibitors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental ResearchSame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207