FGF18 augments osseointegration of intra-medullary implants in osteopenic FGFR3-/- mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancement of endogenous bone regeneration is a priority for integration of joint replacement hardware with host bone for stable fixation of the prosthesis. Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) 18 regulates skeletal development and could therefore have applications for bone regeneration and skeletal repair. This study was designed to determine if treatment with FGF 18 would promote bone regeneration and integration of orthopedic hardware in FGF receptor 3 deficient (FGFR3(-/-)) mice, previously characterized with impaired bone formation. Rigid nylon rods coated with 200 nm of titanium were implanted bilaterally in the femora of adult FGFR3(-/-) and FGFR3(+/+) mice to mimic human orthopedic hardware. At the time of surgery, LEFT femora received an intramedullary injection of 0.5 μg FGF18 (Merck Serono) and RIGHT femora received PBS as a control. Treatment with FGF18 resulted in a significant increase in peri-implant bone formation in both FGFR3(+/+) and FGFR3(-/-) mice, with the peri-implant fibrous tissue frequently seen in FGFR3(-/-) mice being largely replaced by bone. The results of this pre-clinical study support the conjecture that FGF18 could be used in the clinical setting to promote integration of orthopedic hardware in poor quality bone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".