MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982965008 · doi:10.1080/000164702317281378

Osteogenic protein 1 device increases bone formation and bone graft resorption around cementless implants

2002· article· en· W1982965008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Bo Jensen, Søren Overgaard, Martin Lind, Ole Rahbek, Cody Bünger, Kjeld Søballé

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica Scandinavica · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantBone resorptionResorptionFixation (population genetics)DentistryCondyleFEMORAL CONDYLEOsseointegrationBone remodelingSurgeryAnatomyInternal medicineCartilage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In each femoral condyle of 8 Labrador dogs, a non weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implant was inserted surrounded by a 3 mm gap. Each gap was filled with bone allograft or ProOsteon with or without OP-1 delivered in a bovine collagen type I carrier (OP-1 device). 300 microg OP-1 was used in the 0.75 cc gap surrounding the implant. After 3 weeks, the OP-1 device enhanced implant fixation by 800% (p <0.05) in the ProOsteon group, but OP-1 bad no significant effect on implant fixation in the allograft group. By adding the OP-1 device, the volume fraction of woven bone close to the implant increased from 12% to 20% (p < 0.05) in the bone allograft group and from 6% to 25% (p < 0.05) in the ProOsteon group. The volume fraction of bone allograft decreased from 29% to 9% (p < 0.05) in the OP-1 treated group versus 33% to 30% in the allograft group not treated with OP-1. No resorption of ProOsteen was found. In conclusion, OP-1 accelerates resorption of bone allograft and enhances new bone formation around cementless implants grafted with bone allograft or semisynthetic hydroxyapatite bone substitute. Our findings do not support the use of ProOsteon alone around cementless implants.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Orthopaedica ScandinavicaSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207