Mapping of donor and recipient site properties for osteochondral graft reconstruction of subchondral cystic lesions in the equine stifle joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: To improve osteochondral graft reconstruction of subchondral cystic lesions in the medial and lateral femoral condyles by matching the material properties of donor and recipient sites. OBJECTIVES: To measure biomechanical and biochemical parameters that influence the function and healing of osteochondral grafts used to reconstruct subchondral cystic lesions. HYPOTHESIS: Suitable donor sites are available within the stifle joint for reconstructing the femoral condyles, despite considerable regional property variation. METHODS: Fifty-six osteochondral cores were harvested from 6 distal femurs for initial studies that determined subchondral bone modulus of elasticity and ultimate stress. In a second study, 28 osteochondral cores were harvested from 6 distal femurs to measure cartilage aggregate modulus, thickness and sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) content. Using micro-CT imaging, subchondral bone mineral density and bone volume fraction were also measured. In both studies 2-dimensional contour plots using a bicubic interpolation method and normalised data were generated to allow visual comparison of joint surface characteristics. Statistical comparisons between donor and recipient site raw data were made using an ANOVA for repeated measures with a post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: Material properties of cartilage and bone vary considerably over the surface of the stifle joint but the central region of the medial condyle, where subchondral cystic lesions freqdently occur, typically demonstrated bone strength and modulus values of the highest observed. Cartilage thickness and aggregate modulus were highest in the medial femoral condyle and axial aspect of the lateral condyle. CONCLUSIONS: Material properties of the grafts from the trochlear groove and axial aspect of the lateral trochlear ridge were the closest match for those found in the medial condyle, whereas properties of the lateral condyle were most similar to those found in the trochlear groove and axial aspect of the medial trochlear ridge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".