MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008989271 · doi:10.1016/s0736-0266(02)00045-1

Selective joint denervation promotes knee osteoarthritis in the aging rat

2002· article· en· W2008989271 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul Salo, Tom Hogervorst, Ruth A. Seerattan, Diana Rucker, Robert C. Bray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMedical Research Council CanadaAGE-WELL
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineDenervationKnee JointPathogenesisArthropathyAnatomyInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disorder with aging, but its cause is unknown. Mice lose joint afferents with aging, and this loss precedes development of osteoarthritis. We hypothesized a loss of joint afferents is involved in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. To test this hypothesis, we denervated knee joints of 16 rats at age 2 months, by intra-articular injection of an immunotoxin. The immunotoxin killed neurons after retrograde axonal transport to the cell body. At 16 or 24 months follow-up, each joint was histologically assessed and assigned an osteoarthritis score. At follow-up, the number of joint afferents had spontaneously decreased by 42% in control knees and 69% in denervated knees. We found that control knees developed osteoarthritic changes with aging. However, denervated knees had far more severe changes, as evidenced by a 54% higher average osteoarthritis score than control knees (P = 0.0016, both groups 16 knees). These results suggest a loss of afferents predisposes a joint to osteoarthritis. We propose the spontaneous loss of neurons with aging may be a normal developmental process. To explain the mechanism causing osteoarthritis, we suggest denervation permits aberrant joint loading, either by disturbing neuromuscular joint control, or by inducing joint laxity after neurogenic loss of tissue homeostasis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations66
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207