MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072055372 · doi:10.1115/1.2979864

Development and Validation of a System for the Growth of Cells and Tissues Under Intermittent Hydrostatic Pressure

2008· article· en· W2072055372 on OpenAlexaff
Troy J. Eggum, Christopher Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrostatic pressureMesenchymal stem cellCell biologyCell cultureStem cellCytotoxicityCell growthTissue engineeringStimulationCellIn vivoHydrostatic testChemistryTissue cultureIn vitroBiologyBiophysicsBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceBiochemistryBiotechnologyEndocrinologyEngineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various cell populations have been shown to respond to hydrostatic pressure; however, many of the culture systems suffer from shortcomings in design or methodology. Of particular interest to us is the potential role of pressure and other environmental factors in modulating stem cell behavior in intervertebral disk repair. A system was developed for the growth of cells and tissues under intermittent hydrostatic pressure. The system was validated with NIH 3T3 fibroblasts for sterilizability and cytotoxicity. Further experiments were conducted with canine mesenchymal stem cells under various levels of pressure, oxygen, glucose, and conditioned medium. The culture system showed no cytotoxicity and was able to demonstrate that the proliferation and metabolism of mesenchymal stem cells are sensitive to medium glucose and oxygen concentration and hydrostatic pressure. The cells exposed to hydrostatic pressure differed in their morphology from nonexposed cells. The system is capable of supporting long-term cell culture and examining the role of mechanical and environmental stimulation in vivo.

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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207