Integration of Tissue-engineered Cartilage With Host Cartilage: An In Vitro Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We developed a tissue-engineered biphasic cartilage bone substitute construct which has been shown to integrate with host cartilage and differs from autologous osteochondral transfer in which integration with host cartilage does not occur. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Develop a reproducible in vitro model to study the mechanisms regulating tissue-engineered cartilage integration with host cartilage, (2) compare the integrative properties of tissue-engineered cartilage with autologous cartilage and (3) determine if chondrocytes from the in-vitro formed cartilage migrate across the integration site. METHODS: A biphasic construct was placed into host bovine osteochondral explant and cultured for up to 8 weeks (n = 6 at each time point). Autologous osteochondral implants served as controls (n = 6 at each time point). Integration was evaluated histologically, ultrastructurally, biochemically and biomechanically. Chondrocytes used to form cartilage in vitro were labeled with carboxyfluorescein diacetate which allowed evaluation of cell migration into host cartilage. RESULTS: Histologic assessment demonstrated that tissue-engineered cartilage integrated over time, unlike autologous osteochondral implant controls. Biochemically there was an increase in collagen content of the tissue-engineered implant over time but was well below that for native cartilage. Integration strength increased between 4 and 8 weeks as determined by a pushout test. Fluorescent cells were detected in the host cartilage up to 1.5 mm from the interface demonstrating chondrocyte migration. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue-engineered cartilage demonstrated improved integration over time in contrast to autologous osteochondral implants. Integration extent and strength increased with culture duration. There was chondrocyte migration from tissue-engineered cartilage to host cartilage. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This in vitro integration model will allow study of the mechanism(s) regulating cartilage integration. Understanding this process will facilitate enhancement of cartilage repair strategies for the treatment of chondral injuries.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".