Interaction of human osteoblasts with bioinert and bioactive ceramic substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare adhesion, replication, and differentiation of human osteoblasts (OPC1 cell line) on two different ceramic substrates: a bioinert alumina (A1(2)O(3)), and a bioactive hydroxyapatite (HAp). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal scanning microscopy were used to assess production and distribution of specific osteoblast proteins. Cells grew readily on HAp and alumina. On alumina and HAp, OPC1 cells produced distinctive cell-to-cell and cell-to-scaffold filopodia and microextensions. OPC1 cells proliferated faster on HAp than on alumina substrates. Adhesion was further assessed by observing production of the protein vinculin. On alumina, vinculin was detected throughout the cytoplasm, with some peripheral punctate regions. On HAp, OPC1 cells developed few punctate peripheral regions of vinculin; rather, the protein was strongly localized within the cytoplasm. Finally, we measured accumulation of the marker osteopontin (OPN). OPN was first detectable on day 5 and increased through day 11 of culture on alumina. OPC1 cells on HAp produced substantial amounts of OPN beginning at day 5, with apparent secretion from the cells by culture day 11. These results suggest that the function of osteoblasts is strongly affected by the properties of ceramic surfaces, and rapid attachment of osteoblasts may result in earlier differentiation on HAp than on alumina.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".