MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000883906 · doi:10.1159/000091379

Hierarchies of Extracellular Matrix and Mineral Organization in Bone of the Craniofacial Complex and Skeleton

2005· review· en· W2000883906 on OpenAlexaff
Marc D. McKee, William N. Addison, Mari T. Kaartinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCells Tissues Organs · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlkaline Phosphatase Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracellular matrixMineralization (soil science)CraniofacialExtracellularBone mineralBone matrixMasticationChemistryAnatomyMineralized tissuesBiophysicsCell biologyBiologyMaterials scienceOsteoporosisEndocrinologyCartilageGeneticsDentinComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural hierarchies are common in biologic systems and are particularly evident in biomineralized structures. In the craniofacial complex and skeleton of vertebrates, extracellular matrix and mineral of bone are structurally ordered at many dimensional scales from the macro level to the nano level. Indeed, the nanocomposite texture of bone, with nanocrystals of apatitic mineral embedded within a crosslinked matrix of fibrillar and nonfibrillar proteins, imparts to bone the very mechanical properties and toughness it needs to function in vital organ protection, musculoskeletal movement and mastication. This article focuses on how hierarchies of extracellular matrix protein organization influence bone cell behavior, tissue architecture and mineralization. Additional attention is given to recent work on the molecular determinants of mineral induction in bone, and how the mineralization process is subsequently regulated by inhibitory proteins.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCells Tissues OrgansSame topicAlkaline Phosphatase Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207