Non-traumatic necrosis of bone (osteonecrosis) is associated with endothelial cell activation but not thrombophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology of non-traumatic osteonecrosis (ON) or avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head remains poorly understood. Some studies have suggested the contribution of underlying thrombophilia as a mechanism; however, no specific thrombophilic factor has been consistently found in association with the disease. We are presenting data suggesting a role for endothelial cell activation rather than thrombophilia in ON. METHODS: A prospective consecutive cohort of 49 patients with a diagnosis of ON. The disease was considered idiopathic in five and secondary in 44 patients. The investigation included a coagulation and thrombophilia profile, endothelial cell activation and non-specific inflammatory markers as well as a biochemical profile. Statistical analysis using Fisher's exact test was obtained to assess correlation between endothelial cell markers and variables of inflammation. RESULTS: Patients with non-traumatic ON were not found to have a specific underlying thrombophilic factor compared with the general population. Out of 49 patients,19 had elevation of at least one endothelial cell markers. We found that activation of endothelial cell markers was independently correlated to ON but not correlated to the presence of inflammation (P = 1.0000). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that non-traumatic ON is not associated with a specific thrombophilic abnormality in those affected. This study demonstrates a potential association between regional endothelial dysfunction and ON. More studies are needed at a molecular level to further investigate the specific role of endothelium in the physiopathology of ON. A better understanding of the underlying mechanism could lead to potential preventive and therapeutic strategies of this devastating disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".