Endothelial Progenitor Cells for Fracture Healing: A Microcomputed Tomography and Biomechanical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Local treatment of segmental bone defects with ex vivo expanded endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) has been shown to increase osteogenesis and callus formation in rat femur diaphyseal defects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of local EPC therapy on the microarchitecture and biomechanical properties of a segmental bone defect in a rat model. METHODS: Five-millimeter segmental defects were created in the femora of 14 Fisher 344 rats and stabilized with miniplates. The treatment group (n = 7) received 1 × 10(6) EPCs, seeded on a Gelfoam scaffold, locally at the site of the bone defect, and control animals (n = 7) received Gelfoam and saline only. Animals were euthanized 10 weeks after the procedure and new bone formation was assessed with radiographs, microcomputed tomography and biomechanical testing. RESULTS: Radiographically, all the animals in the EPC-treated group healed with bridging callus formation, whereas animals in the control group developed nonunion of the defect. Microcomputed tomography assessment demonstrated significantly superior bone formation in the EPC-treated group versus the control group for all parameters tested (P = 0.013-0.000). Biomechanical testing revealed that the EPC-treated group had significantly higher torsional strength (P = 0.000) and stiffness (P = 0.000) when compared with the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that local EPC therapy significantly enhances fracture healing in a segmental defect model in a rat femur. EPC therapy results in superior radiographic bone formation and healing when compared with appropriate controls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".