Risk of Prion Disease Transmission through Bovine‐Derived Bone Substitutes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the causal association between variant Creutzfeldt - Jakob disease and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), bovine origin graft materials are widely used during dental surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of BSE transmission through anorganic bovine bone substitutes. METHODS: Electronic database of MEDLINE was searched to identify relevant studies regarding our focused questions, presence of BSE prion infectivity in raw bovine bone, BSE prion inactivation by bone substitute manufacturing process, protein contents in anorganic bovine bone substitutes, and validity of current BSE diagnostic methods. Search terms yielded 1,704 titles. After title/abstract screening and duplicates removal, 36 full-text articles were screened for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in the final analysis. No eligible studies were identified regarding the efficacy of BSE prion inactivation by the treatments used for anorganic bovine bone manufacturing. BSE infectivity and PrP(Sc) , pathological prion, were detected in bovine bone marrow and serum samples. Proteins were detected in Tutoplast® (bovine), Bio-Oss®, and tibia samples treated at the similar condition for Bio-Oss deproteinization. Inconsistent results of different BSE diagnostic tests were not unusual findings (Iwata et al. 2006; Arnold et al. 2007; Murayama et al. 2010), and a study by Balkema-Buschmann and colleagues showed an apparent discrepancy between BSE infectivity and detection of PrP(27-30), the current surrogate marker for prion disease infectivity. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that bovine-derived graft biomaterials may carry a risk of prion transmission to patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".