MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086242277 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.30459

Interaction of human osteoblasts with bioinert and bioactive ceramic substrates

2005· article· en· W2086242277 on OpenAlexaff
Debra Rokusek, Christine M. Davitt, Amit Bandyopadhyay, Susmita Bose, Howard L. Hosick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCeramicOsteoblastComposite materialNanotechnologyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207