MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2252986357 · doi:10.1177/0363546515593943

Chondroinduction Is the Main Cartilage Repair Response to Microfracture and Microfracture With BST-CarGel

2015· article· en· W2252986357 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline D. Hoemann, Nicolas Tran‐Khanh, Anik Chevrier, Gaoping Chen, V. Lascau-Coman, Colleen Mathieu, Adele Changoor, Alex Yaroshinsky, Robert G. McCormack, William D. Stanish, Michael D. Buschmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCartilageOrthodonticsAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current cartilage repair histological scoring systems are unable to explain the relationship between collagen type II deposition and overall repair quality. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to develop a novel zonal collagen type (ZCT) 5-point scoring system to measure chondroinduction in human clinical biopsy specimens collected after marrow stimulation. The hypothesis was that the ZCT scores would correlate with the International Cartilage Repair Society-II (ICRS-II) overall histological repair assessment score and glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: After optimizing safranin O staining for GAG and immunostaining for human collagen type II and type I (Col2 and Col1, respectively), serial sections from clinical osteochondral repair biopsy specimens (13 months after microfracture or microfracture with BST-CarGel; n = 39 patients) were stained and 3 blinded readers performed histomorphometry for percentage of staining, ICRS-II histological scoring, polarized light microscopy (PLM) scoring, and 5-point ZCT scoring based on tidemark morphology, zonal distribution of Col2 and Col1, and Col1 percentage stain. Because 1 biopsy specimen was missing bone, 38 biopsy specimens were evaluated for ICRS-II, PLM, and ZCT scores. RESULTS: Chondroinduction was identified in 21 biopsy specimens as a Col2 matrix fused to bone that spanned the deep-middle-superficial zones ("full-thickness hyaline repair"), deep-middle zones, or deep zone ("stalled hyaline") that was covered with a variable-thickness Col1-positive matrix, and was scored, respectively, as ZCT = 1 (n = 4 biopsy specimens), ZCT = 2 (n = 6) and ZCT = 3 (n = 11). Other biopsy specimens (n = 17) were fibrocartilage (n = 9; ZCT = 4), fibrous tissue (n = 4, ZCT = 5), or non-marrow derived (n = 4; ZCT = 0). Non-marrow derived tissue had a mean mature tidemark score of 84 out of 100 versus a regenerating tidemark score of 24 for all other biopsy specimens (P = .005). Both "stalled hyaline" repair and fibrocartilage had the same mean Col2 percentage stain; however, fibrocartilage was distinguished by heavy Col1 deposits in the deep zone, a 2-fold higher mean Col1 percentage stain (P = .001), and lower surface integrity (P = .03). ZCT scores correlated with GAG content and the ICRS-II overall assessment score, especially when combined with the PLM score for collagen organization (R = 0.82). Histological scores of the deep zone strongly predicted the ICRS-II overall assessment score (R = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The ICRS-II overall repair assessment score and GAG content correlated with the extent of Col2 deposition free of fibrosis in the deep/middle zone rather than bulk accumulation of Col2. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Biopsy tissue from the BST-CarGel randomized clinical trial (microfracture without and with BST-CarGel, as treatment groups were not unblinded) showed regenerated tissue consistent with a chondroinduction mechanism in at least half of the treated lesions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207