MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115249576 · doi:10.1021/bp000066y

Bone Affinity of a Bisphosphonate-Conjugated Protein in Vivo

2000· article· en· W2115249576 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Uludağ, Tiejun Gao, Greg Wohl, Darko Kantoci, R.F. Zernicke

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Progress · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBisphosphonateConjugated systemIn vivoChemistryMedicineInternal medicineBiologyOsteoporosisBiotechnologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth factors capable of stimulating bone formation are potential therapeutic agents for osteoporosis treatment. It is essential, however, that a targeting mechanism is incorporated into the growth factors to deposit them at osseous tissue with minimal distribution to extraskeletal sites. To this end, a strategy has been developed in which a bone-seeking molecule, 1-amino-1,1-diphosphonate methane (aminoBP), was chemically conjugated to a model protein, bovine serum albumin (BSA). This study was carried out to assess the bone affinity of the conjugates in a tibia injection model. Using ovariectomized (OVX) rats, initial (3 h) retention of BSA and aminoBP-BSA were found to be equivalent when injected into the medullary cavity of tibia. After 1 day, an 8- and 12-fold higher tibiae retention of the protein was obtained in normal and OVX rats as a result of aminoBP conjugation. A similar result ( approximately 12-fold difference) was also obtained in OVX rats after 3 days. We concluded that aminoBP conjugation to BSA imparted a high bone affinity and enhanced bone retention of proteins in normal and OVX rats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology ProgressSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207