MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998823079 · doi:10.3109/10731190009119362

Osteochondral Lesion Repair of the Knee in the Rabbit after Low-Power Diode Ga-Al-As Laser Biostimulation: An Experimental Study

2000· article· en· W1998823079 on OpenAlexfundno aff
G Morrone, Gaetano Antonio Guzzardella, Paola Torricelli, M. Rocca, Domenico Tigani, Giovanni Barbanti Bròdano, Milena Fini, Roberto Giardino

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and Biotechnology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLaser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMedicineLesionFEMORAL CONDYLEBiostimulationSurgeryLaserChondropathyNuclear medicineAnatomyCartilagePathologyOsteoarthritisArticular cartilageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether low-power laser biostimulation of the osteo-chondral lesions of the knee could by itself reduce repair healing time. Surgery was performed on eighteen rabbits; a bilateral osteo-chondral lesion of 2.5mm in diameter and 2mm depth was created in the femoral medial condyle with a drill. The left knee of each animal was treated intraoperatively using the diode Ga-Al-As laser (780nm) with the following parameters: 300 Joules/cm2, 1 Watts, 300 Hertz, 10 minutes; the right knee was left untreated, as control group. The animals were divided into three groups, A, B and C, according to the survival time after surgery, two, six and twelve weeks, respectively. The explants from the femoral condyles, either treated employing laser energy or left untreated, were examined histomorphometrically. Results after laser treatment showed faster healing of the lesion at week 2 (p=0.043) and an overall improvement in cellular morphology (p=0.044), while a more regular aspect of the osteocartilaginous tissue was observed at week 12 (p=0.004). A relationship between laser biostimulation properties and healing of the osteo-chondral defect has been demonstrated.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations33
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and BiotechnologySame topicLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineFrench-language works237,207