MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115327066 · doi:10.1177/0022034511435260

Osteoinduction

2012· review· en· W2115327066 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Research · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersITI Foundation
KeywordsMesenchymal stem cellIn vivoRegeneration (biology)Bone formationCell biologyChemistryBiologyBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery of osteoinduction in the early 20th century, innovative biomaterials with osteoinductive potential have emerged. Over the last 50 years, however, our ability to describe biological phenomena accurately has been improved dramatically by advancements in cell and molecular biology. The aim of this review is to divide the osteoinduction phenomenon into 3 principles: (1) mesenchymal cell recruitment, (2) mesenchymal differentiation to bone-forming osteoblasts, and (3) ectopic bone formation in vivo. Furthermore, this review formulates guidelines for in vitro and in vivo experimental testing for accurately defining new biomaterials as osteoinductive. The use of growth factors with osteoinductive potential in periodontal and oral surgery is discussed. These concepts and guidelines aim to guide the future direction of emerging biomaterials in bone regeneration.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.581
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.010 · 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