MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973932880 · doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3250-8

Mechanical stimulation enhances integration in an in vitro model of cartilage repair

2014· article· en· W1973932880 on OpenAlexaff
John Theodoropoulos, Amritha J N DeCroos, Massimo Petrera, Sam Park, Rita A. Kandel

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartilageAggrecanImplantBiomedical engineeringStimulationType II collagenTissue engineeringAnatomyIn vitroMatrix Metalloproteinase 3ChemistryCell biologyExtracellular matrixPathologyMedicineOsteoarthritisBiologyArticular cartilageSurgeryInternal medicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: (1) To characterize the effects of mechanical stimulation on the integration of a tissue-engineered construct in terms of histology, biochemistry and biomechanical properties; (2) to identify whether cells of the implant or host tissue were critical to implant integration; and (3) to study cells believed to be involved in lateral integration of tissue-engineered cartilage to host cartilage. We hypothesized that mechanical stimulation would enhance the integration of the repair implant with host cartilage in an in vitro integration model. METHODS: Articular cartilage was harvested from 6- to 9-month-old bovine metacarpal-phalangeal joints. Constructs composed of tissue-engineered cartilage implanted into host cartilage were placed in spinner bioreactors and maintained on a magnetic stir plate at either 0 (static control) or 90 (experimental) rotations per minute (RPM). The constructs from both the static and spinner bioreactors were harvested after either 2 or 4 weeks of culture and evaluated histologically, biochemically, biomechanically and for gene expression. RESULTS: The extent and strength of integration between tissue-engineered cartilage and native cartilage improved significantly with both time and mechanical stimulation. Integration did not occur if the implant was not viable. The presence of stimulation led to a significant increase in collagen content in the integration zone between host and implant at 2 weeks. The gene profile of cells in the integration zone differs from host cartilage demonstrating an increase in the expression of membrane type 1 matrix metalloproteinase (MT1-MMP), aggrecan and type II collagen. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the integration of in vitro tissue-engineered implants with host tissue improves with mechanical stimulation. The findings of this study suggests that consideration should be given to implementing early loading (mechanical stimulation) into future in vivo studies investigating the long-term viability and integration of tissue-engineered cartilage for the treatment of cartilage injuries. This could simply be done through the use of continuous passive motion (CPM) in the post-operative period or through a more complex and structured rehabilitation program with a gradual increase in forces across the joint over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207