MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065008385 · doi:10.1055/s-0032-1319782

The Cartilage-Bone Interface

2012· review· en· W2065008385 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline D. Hoemann, Charles-Hubert Lafantaisie-Favreau, V. Lascau-Coman, Gaoping Chen, Jessica Guzmán‐Morales

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Knee Surgery · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCartilageEndochondral ossificationAnatomyMedicineHyaline cartilagePerichondriumOsteoidFibrocartilagePathologyBiomedical engineeringOsteoarthritisArticular cartilage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the knee joint, the purpose of the cartilage-bone interface is to maintain structural integrity of the osteochondral unit during walking, kneeling, pivoting, and jumping--during which tensile, compressive, and shear forces are transmitted from the viscoelastic articular cartilage layer to the much stiffer mineralized end of the long bone. Mature articular cartilage is integrated with subchondral bone through a approximately 20 to approximately 250 microm thick layer of calcified cartilage. Inside the calcified cartilage layer, perpendicular chondrocyte-derived collagen type II fibers become structurally cemented to collagen type I osteoid deposited by osteoblasts. The mature mineralization front is delineated by a thin approximately 5 microm undulating tidemark structure that forms at the base of articular cartilage. Growth plate cartilage is anchored to epiphyseal bone, sometimes via a thin layer of calcified cartilage and tidemark, while the hypertrophic edge does not form a tidemark and undergoes continual vascular invasion and endochondral ossification (EO) until skeletal maturity upon which the growth plates are fully resorbed and replaced by bone. In this review, the formation of the cartilage-bone interface during skeletal development and cartilage repair, and its structure and composition are presented. Animal models and human anatomical studies show that the tidemark is a dynamic structure that forms within a purely collagen type II-positive and collagen type I-negative hyaline cartilage matrix. Cartilage repair strategies that elicit fibrocartilage, a mixture of collagen type I and type II, are predicted to show little tidemark/calcified cartilage regeneration and to develop a less stable repair tissue-bone interface. The tidemark can be regenerated through a bone marrow-driven growth process of EO near the articular surface.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations174
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Knee SurgerySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207