MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007102617 · doi:10.1002/lary.20009

Transforming growth factor‐β1 shows an incremental osteoinductive dose‐response relationship

2008· article· en· W2007102617 on OpenAlexaff
John Moxham, Kevin Wong, Douglas J. Kibblewhite

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemineralized bone matrixTransforming growth factorAnimal modelDose–response relationshipDosingMatrix (chemical analysis)Extracellular matrixPharmacologyMedicineChemistryInternal medicinedBmMaterials scienceChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a dose-response curve for TGF-beta1 in a rabbit calvarial defect model. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled animal study using arms of increasing concentrations of TGF-beta1 to evaluate the osteoinductive potential of each arm. METHODS: Sixteen skeletally mature New Zealand white rabbits were randomized into control and experimental arms. Incremental doses of TGF-beta1 delivered in an inactivated guanidine-extracted demineralized bone matrix (Gu-DBM) carrier were implanted into a critically sized calvarial defect. The animals were sacrificed at 4 weeks and histomorphometric analysis was then accomplished. RESULTS: TGF-beta1 showed a dose-response relationship, with the higher doses chosen for this study causing more robust osteoinduction. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot dosing study, TGF-beta1 demonstrates increasing osteoinduction with increasing dose levels in this animal model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207