MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014567351 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e31824421b6

Radiation-Induced Craniofacial Bone Growth Inhibition

2012· article· en· W2014567351 on OpenAlexafffund
David O’Donovan, Giorgio C. La Scala, Iona Leong, Maria Gabriela Araújo Mendes, Marianne Rogers, Kenneth H. Pritzker, Ivan Yeung, Cho Y. Pang, Peter C. Neligan, Christopher R. Forrest

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOral health in cancer treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAmifostineOsteoblastOsteoclastOsteocyteMedicineBone remodelingCalceinInternal medicinePathologyUrologyEndocrinologyChemistryToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The authors previously established an animal model of radiation-induced craniofacial bone growth inhibition and demonstrated the effectiveness of cytoprotection in preserving growth using amifostine, but the mechanism is unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate the acute and long-term histopathologic effects of single-dose orthovoltage irradiation on craniofacial bone with and without cytoprotection. METHODS: Sixty infant New Zealand White rabbits (7-week-old) were randomized into three groups (n = 20 per group): group 1, 0-Gy, sham irradiation; group 2, 35-Gy single-dose orthovoltage irradiation; and group 3, cytoprotection with amifostine before irradiation. Orbitozygomatic complex bone was harvested from animals 12 hours after irradiation and at skeletal maturity (21 weeks of age). Histologic parameters measured included native bone cell (osteoblast, osteoclast, and osteocyte) populations, periosteal proliferation indices (MIB-1 stains), bone turnover rates [triple fluorochromes: tetracycline administered at 7 weeks of age (before irradiation), alizarin complexone at 12 weeks, and calcein at 16 weeks of age], and endosteal space fibrosis levels. RESULTS: Orthovoltage irradiation significantly (p < 0.05) reduced osteoblast and osteoclast counts 12 hours after irradiation (age, 7 weeks) with or without pretreatment with amifostine but had no effect on osteocyte populations. Long-term analysis at age 21 weeks demonstrated significantly (p < 0.05) increased osteoblast counts, reduced endosteal space fibrosis, reduced periosteal proliferation indices, and improved bone turnover (fluorochrome stains) in amifostine-treated animals. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that amifostine cytoprotection is mediated through a combination of reduced cellular injury with enhanced promotion of cellular bone rebuilding potential.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicOral health in cancer treatmentFrench-language works237,207