Characterization of cartilagenous tissue formed on calcium polyphosphate substrates<i>in vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful joint resurfacing by tissue-engineered cartilage has been limited, in part, by an inability to secure the implant to bone. To overcome this, we have developed the methodology to form a cartilage implant in vitro consisting of a layer of cartilagenous tissue overlying a porous, biodegradable calcium polyphosphate (CPP) substrate. As bone will grow into the CPP after implantation, it will result in anchorage of the cartilage. In this study, the cartilagenous tissue formed in vitro after 8 weeks in culture was characterized and compared to native articular cartilage. Light microscopic examination of histological sections showed that there was a continuous layer of cartilagenous tissue on, and integrated with the subsurface of, the CPP substrate. The in vitro-formed tissue achieved a similar thickness to native articular cartilage (mean +/- SEM: in vitro = 0.94 +/- 0.03 mm; ex vivo = 1.03 +/- 0.01 mm). The cells in the in vitro-formed tissue synthesized large proteoglycans (Kav +/- SEM: in vitro = 0.27 +/- 0.01; ex vivo = 0.27 +/- 0.01) and type II collagen similar to the chondrocytes in the ex-vivo cartilage. The in vitro-formed tissue had a similar amount of proteoglycan (GAG microg/mg dry wt.: in vitro = 198 +/- 10; ex vivo = 201 +/- 13) but less collagen than the native cartilage (hydroxyproline microg/mg dry wt.: in vitro = 21 +/- 1; ex vivo = 70 +/- 8). The in vitro-formed tissue had only about 3% of the load-bearing capacity and stiffness of the native articular cartilage, determined from unconfined mechanical compression testing. Although low, this was within the range of properties reported by others for tissue-engineered cartilage. It is possible that the limited load-bearing capacity is the result of the low collagen content and further studies are required to identify the conditions that will increase collagen synthesis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".