EXAMINING PATTERNS OF VERTEBRAL GROWTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE CLOSURE OF CARTILAGINOUS GROWTH PLATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vertebral growth remains a mystery, especially with regards to the contribution of different growth plates and the mechanisms of growth after closure of these plates. As an example of vertebral growth in general, the growth of the vertebral canal was assessed in a rat model using fluorochromes. Although 80–90% of vertebral canal growth was due to growth plates, the remaining canal growth occurred via periosteal absorption and deposition. This is contrary to the traditional idea that periosteal mechanisms do not change the shape or dimensions of bone and suggests that the vertebrae exhibit a different model of growth than typical bones. Vertebral growth remains largely a mystery. The contributions of different growth plates and the mechanisms of growth after closure of these plates requires further exploration. As an example of vertebral growth, vertebral canal growth was assessed in a living rat model using fluorochromes. Vertebral canal growth and presumably vertebral growth in general occurred by different mechanisms at different phases of development. Growth plates accounted for the majority of growth although periosteal mechanisms also resulted in changes in the size and shape of the vertebrae. This is contrary to the traditional concept of periosteal growth and suggests that vertebrae may exhibit a different model of growth than typical bones. The growth of the vertebrae in a particular dimension and during a particular phase of development is dependent on different mechanisms of growth, which may play a role in interpreting vertebral growth anomalies. The interspinous junction closed by the end of the first week, whereas the neurocentral junction closed between weeks three and four. By four weeks, the vertebral canal had achieved 80–90% of its growth in area and diameter. After growth plate closure, the canal continued to grow by periosteal mechanisms and was displaced posteriorly. Thirty-six Sprague-Dawley rats (age one week-seven weeks) were injected with tetracycline and alizarin using a dosing interval of four days. Thoracic vertebrae were sectioned using a cryostat and examined under a fluorescence microscope. In addition to noting fluoro-chrome deposition, the dimensions of the growth plates and canal were noted. Funding: Edmonton Orthopaedic Research Association and University of Alberta Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".