MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

177
MRI monitoring of osteogenesis of human bone marrow stromal cell-based tissue engineering constructs

2008· article· en· W2019574686 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Liu Hong, Ioana A. Peptan, Huihui Xu, Richard L. Magin

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Repair and Regeneration · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Injury Prevention and ControlNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStromal cellTissue engineeringBone marrowMesenchymal stem cellBiomedical engineeringAlkaline phosphataseGelatinPathologyCellHuman boneChemistryMedicineIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone marrow stromal cells (MSCs) are a promising cell resource of osteoprogenitor cells for bone tissue engineering. However, the diverse characteristics of osteoprogenitor cells within the bone marrow of individual subjects require varying treatments to stimulate osteogenic differentiation. Thus, an effective monitoring system is needed to identify the progression of osteogenesis. Magnetic resonance (MR) microscopy was used in the present study to monitor osteogenesis of tissue engineering (TE) constructs prepared by human bone MSCs seeded on scaffolds of gelatin sponges. The characteristics of MR images and parameters corresponded to osteogenic progression of TE constructs exposed to differentiation medium, significantly differing from control groups exposed to basic medium. Upon quantification, MR image and parameters correlated well to cell seeding densities and alkaline phosphatase activities of various TE constructs. In conclusion, MR can effectively detect the biochemical cascades of osteogenic differentiation of TE constructs and may be a promising, noninvasive monitoring system to provide three-dimensional information for bone tissue engineering.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Repair and RegenerationSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207