MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258208118 · doi:10.1155/2016/3152065

A Simplified Method for the Aspiration of Bone Marrow from Patients Undergoing Hip and Knee Joint Replacement for Isolating Mesenchymal Stem Cells and<i>In Vitro</i>Chondrogenesis

2016· article· en· W2258208118 on OpenAlexafffund
Subhash C. Juneja, Sowmya Viswanathan, Milan Ganguly, Christian Veillette

Bibliographic record

VenueBone Marrow Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto Western Hospital
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineMesenchymal stem cellBone marrowFemurChondrogenesisRegenerative medicineOsteoarthritisSurgeryPathologyStem cellBiologyCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The procedure for aspiration of bone marrow from the femur of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) may vary from an OR (operating room) to OR based on the surgeon's skill and may lead to varied extent of clotting of the marrow and this, in turn, presents difficulty in the isolation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from such clotted bone marrow. We present a simple detailed protocol for aspirating bone marrow from such patients, isolation, and characterization of MSCs from the aspirated bone marrow specimens and show that the bone marrow presented no clotting or exhibited minimal clotting. This represents an economical source and convenient source of MSCs from bone marrow for use in regenerative medicine. Also, we presented the detailed protocol and showed that the MSCs derived from such bone marrow specimens exhibited MSCs characteristics and generated micromass cartilages, the recipe for regenerative medicine for osteoarthritis. The protocols we presented can be used as standard operating procedures (SOPs) by researchers and clinicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBone Marrow ResearchSame topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207