Value and Limitations of Using the Bovine Tail as a Model for the Human Lumbar Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. The contents of DNA, proteoglycan, type II collagen, and denatured type II collagen in the bovine coccygeal intervertebral discs were examined in situ in relation to disc level, age, and tissue region. Objective. To determine whether bovine coccygeal discs are a suitable model to study human lumbar discs. Summary of Background Data. Bovine coccygeal discs have been suggested as a suitable alternative model because they are readily available, in contrast to human discs, and represent a common source of tissue in the disc field. However, it is not known whether the changes in matrix contents in bovine coccygeal discs are similar to those found in the human lumbar spine. Methods. Intervertebral discs from bovine tails were dissected into the nucleus pulposus (NP) and anulus fibrosus (AF). Tissues were weighed and analyzed for matrix contents using specific assays. Results. Similar to water content, the proteoglycan content was higher in the NP than in the AF. Water content of the bovine NP did not change with age, unlike the proteoglycan content, which decreased. type II collagen content was higher in the NP than in the AF, and both did not change overall significantly with age. The percent of denatured type II collagen decreased with age only in the NP. The DNA content did not vary with age in the AF and in the NP. Conclusion. Differences in matrix contents exist between the bovine coccygeal discs and the human lumbar spine. Thus, caution must be exercised when using the bovine tail as a model for the human lumbar spine in biochemical studies. Contents of type II collagen, proteoglycan, water, and DNA of the bovine coccygeal intervertebral discs were determined in situ. When results are compared with human studies, many differences and similarities are apparent. Thus, caution must be exercised when selecting the bovine tissue as a model for the human lumbar spine.
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 | 0.036 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".