MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137207426 · doi:10.1177/002215540305100108

Quantitative Immunogold Labeling of Bone Sialoprotein and Osteopontin in Methylmethacrylate-embedded Rat Bone

2003· article· en· W2137207426 on OpenAlexaff
O. Laboux, L-G. Ste-Marie, Francis H. Glorieux, Antonio Nanci

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Dental Protein Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityHôpital Saint-LucMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImmunolabelingImmunogold labellingBone sialoproteinOsteopontinImmunocytochemistryChemistryUltrastructureCortical bonePrimary and secondary antibodiesMaterials scienceBiophysicsPathologyOsteocalcinAnatomyImmunohistochemistryBiochemistryBiologyAlkaline phosphataseAntibodyMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methylmethacrylate (MMA) embedding of undecalcified bone is routinely employed for histomorphometric analyses. Although MMA-embedded bone has been used for immunolabeling at the light microscopic level after removal of the resin, there are no such reports for electron microscopy. The aim of the present study was to determine whether MMA embedding can be used for ultrastructural immunolabeling and how it compares to LR White (LRW), an acrylic resin frequently used for immunocytochemistry of bone. Rat tibiae were fixed by vascular perfusion with aldehyde and embedded either in MMA or LRW resin. Thin sections were processed for postembedding protein A-gold immunolabeling with antibodies to rat bone sialoprotein (BSP) and osteopontin (OPN). The density of gold particles over bone was quantified. The density and distribution of immunolabeling for BSP and OPN respectively, were comparable between MMA and LRW. These results indicate that MMA performs as well as LRW for the ultrastructural immunolabeling of noncollagenous bone matrix proteins.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Histochemistry & CytochemistrySame topicBone and Dental Protein StudiesFrench-language works237,207