Immunohistochemical Analysis of Osteoblasts in Zygapophyseal Joints of Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis Reveal Repair Mechanisms Similar to Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: New bone formation of the spine is a typical feature of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). It is unknown whether new bone formation is part of a physiological repair process or a unique pathological entity of the disease. METHODS: We analyzed zygapophyseal joints from patients with AS and osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing spinal surgery for rigid hyperkyphosis (AS) or radiculopathy caused by severe OA. In 17 patients with AS, 11 with OA, and 5 controls we performed immunohistochemical analysis of osteoprotegerin (OPG), nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL), and osteocalcin (OC) expression in osteoblasts and determined the trabecular thickness in AS and OA patients and controls. Osteoclasts were detected by tartrate-resistant alkaline phosphatase (TRAP) staining. RESULTS: Trabecular thickness was significantly lower in patients with AS compared to OA (p = 0.01). The absolute number of CD56+ osteoblasts (p < 0.001) and OC+ (p = 0.002), OPG+ (p = 0.003), and RANKL+ osteoblasts (p = 0.03) in AS patients was also significantly lower than in OA patients. The percentages of OC+, OPG+, and RANKL+ osteoblasts did not differ between AS and OA (p > 0.05 in all cases). In controls, the percentages of OPG+ (p = 0.013) and OC+ (p = 0.034) but not RANKL+ (p > 0.05) osteoblasts were significantly lower compared to AS patients. The frequency of TRAP+ osteoclasts in AS patients was significantly lower compared to OA (p < 0.001), but higher compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemical analysis of zygapophyseal joints suggested that osteoblast activity is similar in AS and OA, indicating that new bone formation is possibly a physiological function of repair in both diseases.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".