MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074509558 · doi:10.1053/jvet.2003.50060

In vitro comparison of equine cancellous bone graft donor sites and tibial periosteum as sources of viable osteoprogenitors

2003· article· en· W2074509558 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

VenueVeterinary Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriosteumAnatomyCancellous boneMedicineVertebra

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the osteogenic potential of cancellous bone of conventional graft sites with that of one nonconventional site (fourth coccygeal vertebra) and to investigate the tibial periosteum as a donor site with respect to osteogenic potential. STUDY DESIGN: In vitro osteogenic cell culture system. SAMPLE POPULATION: Eight adult horses. METHODS: Cancellous bone or tibial periosteum was aseptically collected and cut into bone chips or periosteal strips of 1 to 2 mm(3) for primary explant cultures. After 2 weeks, primary tissue cultures that yielded a population of osteogenic cells were counted and subcultured at 1 x 10(5) cells/35-mm dish in osteogenic media. After 7 to 10 days, subcultures were stained with Von Kossa (VK) to assess mineralized bone nodule formation. VK-positive bone nodules were counted as osteoprogenitors and compared among 3 donor sites, which provided consistent primary osteogenic cells (tuber coxae, fourth coccygeal vertebra, periosteum) using ANOVA (P <.05). RESULTS: Sternal and tibial bone yielded viable osteogenic cells from 25% and 50% of horses, respectively, whereas yields from tuber coxae, coccygeal vertebra, and periosteum were 75%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Tuber coxae and periosteum had significantly greater numbers of osteoprogenitors compared with fourth coccygeal vertebra. CONCLUSIONS: Among the conventional donor sites, tuber coxae most consistently yielded viable osteogenic cells with an acceptable percentage of osteoprogenitors. Sternal and tibial sites were unreliable in providing osteogenic cells. Two new donor sites, the fourth coccygeal vertebra and tibial periosteum, were tissues with good osteogenic potential. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When a source of transplantable viable osteoprogenitor cells is desired, use of the tuber coxae as a conventional donor site is warranted. Use of tibial periosteum or fourth coccygeal vertebra as reliable sources of transplantable osteoprogenitors should be considered.

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)
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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