MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130102974 · doi:10.1096/fj.01-0913fje

Genetic predisposition to low bone mass is paralleled by an enhanced sensitivity to signals anabolic to the skeleton

2002· article· en· W2130102974 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefan Judex, Leah‐Rae Donahue, Clinton T. Rubin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical ResearchNational Space Biomedical Research InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAnabolismCatabolismEndocrinologyInternal medicineBone densityStimulationSkeleton (computer programming)Bone mineralTibiaChemistryMechanical vibrationOsteoporosisMedicineAnatomyMetabolismVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of the adult skeleton is determined, in large part, by its genome. Whether genetic variations may influence the effectiveness of interventions to combat skeletal diseases remains unknown. The differential response of trabecular bone to an anabolic (low-level mechanical vibration) and a catabolic (disuse) mechanical stimulus were evaluated in three strains of adult mice. In low bone-mineral-density C57BL/6J mice, the low-level mechanical signal caused significantly larger bone formation rates (BFR) in the proximal tibia, but the removal of functional weight bearing did not significantly alter BFR. In mid-density BALB/cByJ mice, mechanical stimulation also increased BFR, whereas disuse significantly decreased BFR. In contrast, neither anabolic nor catabolic mechanical signals influenced any index of bone formation in high-density C3H/HeJ mice. Together, data from this study indicate that the sensitivity of trabecular tissue to both anabolic and catabolic stimuli is influenced by the genome. Extrapolated to humans, these results may explain in part why prophylaxes for low bone mass are not universally effective, yet also indicate that there may be a genotypic indication of people who are at reduced risk of suffering from bone loss.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations154
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207