Growth factor delivery for bone tissue repair: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth factors (GFs) are endogenous proteins capable of acting on cell-surface receptors and directing cellular activities involved in the regeneration of new bone tissue. The specific actions and long-term effects of GFs on bone-forming cells have resulted in exploration of their potential for clinical bone repair. The concerted efforts have led to the recent approval of two GFs, bone morphogenetic protein-2 and osteogenic protein-1, for clinical bone repair, and human parathryroid hormone (1-34) for augmentation of systemic bone mass. This review provides a selective summary of recent (2001-2004) attempts for GF delivery in bone tissue regeneration. First, a summary of non-human primate studies involving local regeneration and repair is provided, with special emphasis on the range of biomaterials used for GF delivery. Next, efforts to administer GFs for systemic augmentation of bone tissue are summarised. Finally, an alternative means of GF delivery, namely the delivery of genes coding for osteogenic proteins, rather than the delivery of the proteins, is summarised from rodent models. To conclude, future avenues of research considered promising to enhance the clinical application of GFs are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".