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 OpenAlexaff
Laurie A. McDuffee, Gail I. Anderson

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary SurgerySame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207