Depth of subchondral perforation influences the outcome of bone marrow stimulation cartilage repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subchondral drilling and microfracture are bone marrow stimulation techniques commonly used for the treatment of cartilage defects. Few studies to date have examined the technical variants which may influence the success of the cartilage repair procedures. This study compared the effect of hole depth (6 mm vs. 2 mm) and hole type (drill vs. microfracture) on chondral defect repair using a mature rabbit model. Results from quantitative histomorphometry and histological scoring showed that deeper versus shallower drilling elicited a greater fill of the cartilage defect with a more hyaline character in the repair matrix indicated by significant improvement (p = 0.021) in the aggregate measure of increased cartilage defect fill, increased glycosaminoglycan and type II collagen content and reduced type I collagen content of total soft repair tissue. Compared to microfracture at the same 2 mm depth, drilling to 2 mm produced a similar quantity and quality of cartilage repair (p = 0.120) according to the aggregate indicator described above. We conclude that the depth of bone marrow stimulation can exert important influences on cartilage repair outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".