MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021862408 · doi:10.1002/bdrc.20124

Transcriptional regulators of chondrocyte hypertrophy

2008· review· en· W2021862408 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren A. Solomon, Nathalie G. Bérubé, Frank Beier

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth Defects Research Part C Embryo Today Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChondrocyteMuscle hypertrophyEndochondral ossificationBiologyTranscription factorCartilageCell biologyMEF2CEctopic expressionTranscription (linguistics)GeneticsAnatomyEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coordinated transition from proliferation to terminal differentiation and hypertrophy of growth plate chondrocytes is required for normal growth of endochondral bones and thus determines final height in humans. Over the last decades, transcription factors of the Sox and Runx families have been shown to be the central regulators of this process. More recently, numerous additional transcription factors have been identified as positive or negative regulators of chondrocyte hypertrophy, such as Shox/Shox2, Dlx5, and MEF2C. These factors do not only control skeletal development and growth, but might also participate in ectopic chondrocyte hypertrophy during the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. This review focuses on recent advances in our understanding of the transcriptional regulation of chondrocyte hypertrophy, with particular attention to genes that have only recently been implicated in cartilage development or received little attention so far.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirth Defects Research Part C Embryo Today ReviewsSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207