Compositional and Material Properties of Rat Bone after Bisphosphonate and/or Strontium Ranelate Drug Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated elemental strontium and/or bisphosphonate drug incorporation upon the compositional and biomechanical properties of vertebral bone, in a rat model of Osteoporosis secondary to ovariectomy. METHODS: Six month old female rats were ovariectomized (OVX) and divided into untreated OVX-Vehicle, OVX-RIS (Risedronate bisphosphonate [BP] treated), OVX-SrR (Strontium Ranelate [Protos®] treated), combination OVX-RIS+SrR, and sham-operated controls. After 16 weeks of treatment, rats were euthanized and lumbar vertebra were dissected. Micro-Computed Tomography (micro-CT), Electron Probe Micro-Analysis (EPMA), mechanical testing in compression and nano-indentation testing were then undertaken to evaluate bone morphometry, elemental composition, material properties and strength. RESULTS: Bone Volume was significantly reduced in the OVX-Vehicle (133±10 mm(3)) compared with OVX-RIS (169±22 mm(3)), OVX-SrR (145±2 mm(3)), and OVX-RIS+SrR (172±8 mm(3)). EPMA mapped elemental Sr deposition to the periosteal surface of cortical bone (50-100 µm thick), endosteal trabecular surfaces (20 µm thick), as well as to both vertebral growth plates. The atomic ratios of (Ca+Sr)/P were significantly reduced with SrR treatment (2.4%-6.6%), indicating Sr incorporation into bone mineral. No significant differences were measured in vertebral bone reduced modulus by nano-indentation. Conversely, all BP-dosed groups had significantly increased structural bone strength. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, we conclude that BP drugs dominate the conservation of trabecular geometry and structural strength in OP rats, whereas Sr drugs likely influence bone volume and material composition locally.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".