Growth plate explants respond differently to in vitro static and dynamic loadings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the effects of static and dynamic compression applied on growth plate explants using matched compressive strains. Growth plate explants from 4-week-old swine ulnae were submitted to in vitro static (10% strain) or dynamic (oscillating between 7% and 13% at 0.1 Hz) unconfined compression for 48 h. The total growth plate height, the combined proliferative and hypertrophic thickness and the resulting ratio between these two thicknesses were evaluated. Standard immunohistochemistry was used to analyze the protein expression of key components of the extracellular matrix: aggrecan, type II collagen, type X collagen, and MMP13. In the statically loaded samples, the columnar organization of the cells was preserved but with slight columns deviation from the growth axis. Decreases in all histomorphological parameters were important and a notable loss of aggrecan, type II and type X collagens expressions was denoted. In the dynamically loaded samples, a severe loss of columnar arrangement was observed in the proliferative and hypertrophic zones. However, dynamic compressive loads preserved the proliferative and hypertrophic zones ratio and contributed to the synthesis of aggrecan and type II collagen in the extracellular matrix. The exact response of the growth plate to mechanical stresses along with optimal loading parameters could help improve the current treatment approaches or develop new treatment approaches for the underlying progressive musculoskeletal deformities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".