Body Mass Index Is More Predictive of Progenitor Number in Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Population Than Age in Men: Expanding the Predictors of the Progenitor Compartment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has focused on in vitro expansion of bone marrow stromal cells with the aim of developing cell-based therapies or tissue-engineered constructs. There is debate over whether there is a reduction in stem cells/osteoprogenitors in the bone marrow compartment with increasing age. The aim of this study was to investigate patient factors that affect the progenitor pool in bone marrow samples. Six milliliters of marrow aspirate was obtained from the femoral canal of 38 primary hip replacement patients (aged 28-91). Outcome measures were total nucleated cell count, colony-forming efficiency, alkaline phosphatase expression, and expression of stem cell markers. There was a nonsignificant negative correlation between age and both colony-forming efficiency and stem cell marker expression. However, body mass index showed a positive, significant correlation with colony area and number in men-accounting for up to 75% of the variation. In conclusion, body mass index, not age, was highly predictive of the number of progenitors found in bone marrow, and this relationship was sex specific. These results may inform the clinician's treatment choice when considering bone marrow-based therapies. Further, it highlights the need to widen research into patient factors that affect the adult stem cell population beyond age and reinforces the need to consider sexes separately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".