MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Platelet releasate increases the proliferation and migration of bone marrow‐derived cells cultured under osteogenic conditions

2006· article· en· W1978258965 on OpenAlexaff
Lianne R. Kark, Jeffrey M. Karp, John E. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Oral Implants Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPlateletWound healingCell growthBone marrowThrombinMitomycin CCell biologyCellChemistryImmunologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concentrated platelets and their products are currently being used as a clinical tool to accelerate endosseous wound healing. However, there is little understanding regarding the actions of platelets and platelet-released products on osteogenic cells. We show, herein, that releasate from thrombin-activated platelets increases the migration and proliferation of osteogenic cultures of bone marrow cells. Using a scratch wound assay, we demonstrated that platelet releasate (PR) stimulated up to a 2.4 +/- 0.5-fold increase in wound closure in serum-free medium, relative to a control containing thrombin. In the presence of serum, the addition of PR resulted in a 1.45 +/- 0.13-fold increase in scratch closure. To isolate cell migration from the effects of cell proliferation, cell monolayers were pre-incubated with 5, 10 and 20 microg/ml of Mitomycin C (MMC), which is a potent inhibitor of cell proliferation. This resulted in a large decrease in the leading front of scratch closure, which indicates that PR stimulated cell mitogenesis. However, irrespective of MMC pre-treatment, PR stimulated a motogenic response. These results provide evidence of possible mechanisms by which platelets could influence bone regeneration.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Oral Implants ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207