MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177448824 · doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4640-z

Does Sclerostin Depletion Stimulate Fracture Healing in a Mouse Model?

2015· article· en· W2177448824 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad M. Alzahrani, Frank Rauch, Reggie C. Hamdy

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSclerostinBone healingMedicineEndocrinologyInternal medicineBone fractureContext (archaeology)Wnt signaling pathwaySurgeryCell biologySignal transductionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sclerostin is a secreted glycoprotein that inhibits the intracellular Wnt signaling pathway, which, when inactivated, stimulates bone formation. This has been seen in fracture studies, which have shown larger and stronger calluses with accelerated fracture healing in sclerostin knockout and sclerostin antibody injection models. However, the effects of these two mechanisms have not been compared in the context of fracture healing. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to determine the degree to which sclerostin inhibition (Scl-Ab injection) and complete sclerostin depletion inhibit fracture healing in a mouse model as evaluated by (1) morphometric trabecular bone measures at the fracture site, and (2) fracture site structural strength. METHODS: Ten-week-old male sclerostin knockout (n = 20) and wild type (n = 40) mice underwent insertion of a tibial intramedullary pin after which a midshaft tibial osteotomy was performed. The mice were divided in three groups: sclerostin knockout (n = 20), wild type with sclerostin antibody injection (intravenous dose of 100 mg/kg weekly) (n = 20), and wild type with saline injection (n = 20). The mice for each group where subdivided and euthanized at 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after surgery, at which time the fractured tibias were assessed with microCT (to assess morphometric trabecular bone measures: bone volume to total volume (BV/TV), trabecular thickness, trabecular number, and structural model index at the fracture site. Biomechanical testing in the form of three-point bending also was done to assess fracture site structural strength. A difference greater than 3.7% in our primary outcome (BV/TV) would be required to detect a difference between groups with a power of 80%, as per our power analysis. RESULTS: The wild type with sclerostin antibody and the sclerostin knockout groups showed increased trabecular BV/TV at the fracture site compared with the wild type group with saline at all times, however no difference was seen between the treatment groups with the numbers available, except at 28 days postoperatively when the sclerostin knockout group showed greater BV/TV than the wild type sclerostin antibody group (47.0 ± 3.5 vs 40.1 ± 2.1; p < 0.05). On biomechanical testing the wild type sclerostin antibody showed increased stiffness at Days 14 and 28 compared with the wild type with saline group (70.9 ± 6.4 vs 14.8 ± 8.1; p = 0.001), (106.8 ± 24.3 vs 74.9 ± 16.0; p = 0.004); respectively. However, with the numbers available, no differences were detected between the wild type with sclerostin antibody and the sclerostin knockout groups in terms of whole-bone structural strength. CONCLUSIONS: Sclerostin antibody injections showed promising results, which were not different with the numbers available, from results achieved with complete depletion of sclerostin, especially at earlier stages of the healing process, and therefore completed the healing process at an earlier time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sclerostin antibody injections appear to enhance fracture healing to a degree that is not different than complete sclerostin depletion, but larger animal studies are required to assess the accurate dosage and timing of administration in the fracture healing process to further evaluate its potential clinical utility to enhance fracture healing.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207