MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149729766 · doi:10.3109/10611860108998776

Growth Factor Delivery for Bone Tissue Engineering

2001· review· en· W2149729766 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien A. Gittens, Hasan Uludağ

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of drug targeting · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBone Tissue Engineering Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBone healingRegeneration (biology)Tissue engineeringDrug deliveryBone tissueMedicineBone remodelingBiomedical engineeringSurgeryBiologyCell biologyMaterials scienceInternal medicineNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bone is a dynamic tissue that undergoes significant turnover during the life cycle of an individual. Despite having a significant regenerative capability, trauma and other pathological scenarios commonly require therapeutic intervention to facilitate the healing process. Bone tissue engineering, where cellular and biological processes at a site are deliberately manipulated for a therapeutic outcome, offers a viable option for the treatment of skeletal diseases. In this review paper, we aim to provide a brief synopsis of cellular and molecular basis of bone formation that are pertinent to current efforts of bone healing. Different approaches for engineering bone tissue were presented with special emphasis on the use of soluble (diffusible) therapeutic agents to accelerate bone healing. The latter agents have been used for both local bone repair (i.e. introduction of agents directly to a site of repair) as well as systemic bone regeneration (i.e. delivery for regeneration throughout the skeletal system). Critical drug delivery and targeting issues pertinent for each mode of bone regeneration are provided. In addition, future challenges and opportunities in bone tissue engineering are proposed from the authors' perspective.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations103
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of drug targetingSame topicBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsFrench-language works237,207