Are skeletally mature female rats a suitable model to study osteoporosis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze if female Wistar rats at 56 weeks of age are a suitable model to study osteoporosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Female rats with 6 and 36 weeks of age (n = 8 per group) were kept over a 20-week period and fed a diet for mature rodents complete in terms of Ca, phosphorous, and vitamin D. Excised femurs were measured for bone mass using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, morphometry, and biomechanical properties. The following serum markers of bone metabolism were analyzed: parathyroid hormone (PTH), osteocalcin (OC), osteoprotegerin (OPG), receptor activator of nuclear factor Κappa B ligand (RANKL), C-terminal peptides of type I collagen (CTX-I), total calcium, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. RESULTS: Rats at 56 weeks of age showed important bone metabolism differences when compared with the younger group, such as, highest diaphysis energy to failure, lowest levels of OC, CTX-I, and ALP, and elevated PTH, even with adequate dietary Ca. CONCLUSION: Rats at 26-week-old rats may be too young to study age-related bone loss, whereas the 56-week-old rats may be good models to represent the early stages of age-related changes in bone metabolism.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".