MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bone Morphogenetic Protein Delivery Systems

2002· review· en· W2038691470 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone morphogenetic proteinMedicineSpinal fusionBone morphogenetic protein 2Biomedical engineeringOrthopedic surgeryBone morphogenetic protein 7Bone healingCell biologySurgeryIn vitroBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A review was conducted. OBJECTIVES: To review the rationale for the use of carrier systems to deliver bone morphogenetic proteins to sites of orthopedic repair, and to discuss commonly used carriers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Carriers for bone morphogenetic protein in spine fusion are used to increase the retention of these osteogenic factors at the treatment site, and to serve as an osteoconductive matrix for bone forming cells while maintaining a space or volume in which bone formation can occur. METHODS: The literature is reviewed and discussed. RESULTS: Although bone morphogenetic proteins can induce bone formation when delivered in formulation buffer in small animal models, carriers often are used in larger animal models and human clinical trials to maintain the concentration of osteogenic factors at the treatment site for a sufficient period to allow bone-forming cells to migrate to the area of injury and to proliferate and differentiate. For spine fusion, carriers also are required to serve as an osteoconductive matrix for bone-forming cells while maintaining a space or volume in which bone formation can occur. Four major categories of carrier materials are used for osteogenic factor delivery: inorganic materials, synthetic polymers, natural polymers, and composites of the first three materials. In addition, allograft bone has been used to deliver osteogenic factors to the site of orthopedic repairs. The efficacy of osteogenic carrier combinations often is site specific and species specific. The requirement for supraphysiologic concentrations of osteogenic factors may be related to the ability of the delivery system to increase the retention time at the treatment site and overcome tight regulation of these factors by their inhibitors. Dose escalation in large animal models also may be related to a decrease in the number of responding cells and a slower rate of bone formation. New delivery systems being evaluated include depot delivery systems, viral vector systems, conjugated osteogenic factor delivery systems, and oral small molecule targets. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery systems play an important role in the use of osteogenic factors to augment spine fusions and other orthopedic repairs.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · 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