Mathematical Model of Paracrine Interactions between Osteoclasts and Osteoblasts Predicts Anabolic Action of Parathyroid Hormone on Bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To restore falling plasma calcium levels, PTH promotes calcium liberation from bone. PTH targets bone-forming cells, osteoblasts, to increase expression of the cytokine receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), which then stimulates osteoclastic bone resorption. Intriguingly, whereas continuous administration of PTH decreases bone mass, intermittent PTH has an anabolic effect on bone, which was proposed to arise from direct effects of PTH on osteoblastic bone formation. However, antiresorptive therapies impair the ability of PTH to increase bone mass, indicating a complex role for osteoclasts in the process. We developed a mathematical model that describes the actions of PTH at a single site of bone remodeling, where osteoclasts and osteoblasts are regulated by local autocrine and paracrine factors. It was assumed that PTH acts only to increase the production of RANKL by osteoblasts. As a result, PTH stimulated osteoclasts upon application, followed by compensatory osteoblast activation due to the coupling of osteoblasts to osteoclasts through local paracrine factors. Continuous PTH administration resulted in net bone loss, because bone resorption preceded bone formation at all times. In contrast, over a wide range of model parameters, short application of PTH resulted in a net increase in bone mass, because osteoclasts were rapidly removed upon PTH withdrawal, enabling osteoblasts to rebuild the bone. In excellent agreement with experimental findings, increase in the rate of osteoclast death abolished the anabolic effect of PTH on bone. This study presents an original concept for the regulation of bone remodeling by PTH, currently the only approved anabolic treatment for osteoporosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".