Evaluation and comparison of the <i>in vitro</i> characteristics and chondrogenic capacity of four adult stem/progenitor cells for cartilage cell‐based repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cell-based therapy is being considered as a promising approach to regenerate damaged cartilage. Though, autologous chondrocyte implantation is the most effective strategy currently in use, but is hampered by some drawbacks seeking comprehensive research to surmount existing limitations or introducing alternative cell sources. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the in vitro characteristics and chondrogenic capacity of some easily available adult cell sources for use in cartilage repair which includes: bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), adipose tissue-derived MSC, articular chondrocyte progenitors, and nasal septum-derived progenitors. Human stem/progenitor cells were isolated and expanded. Cell's immunophenotype, biosafety, and cell cycle status were evaluated. Also, cells were seeded onto aligned electrospun poly (l-lactic acid)/poly (ε-caprolactone) nanofibrous scaffolds and their proliferation rate as well as chondrogenic potential were assessed. Cells were almost phenotypically alike as they showed similar cell surface marker expression pattern. The aligned nanofibrous hybrid scaffolds could support the proliferation and chondrogenic differentiation of all cell types. However, nasal cartilage progenitors showed a higher proliferation potential and a higher chondrogenic capacity. Though, mostly similar in the majority of the studied features, nasal septum progenitors demonstrated a higher chondrogenic potential that in combination with their higher proliferation rate and easier access to the source tissue, introduces it as a promising cell source for cartilage tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 104A: 600-610, 2016.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".