The Augmentation of a Collagen/Glycosaminoglycan Biphasic Osteochondral Scaffold with Platelet-Rich Plasma and Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate for Osteochondral Defect Repair in Sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the combination of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or concentrated bone marrow aspirate (CBMA) with a biphasic collagen/glycosaminoglycan (GAG) osteochondral scaffold for the treatment of osteochondral defects in sheep. DESIGN: Acute osteochondral defects were created in the medial femoral condyle (MFC) and the lateral trochlea sulcus (LTS) of 24 sheep (n = 6). Defects were left empty or filled with a 6 × 6-mm scaffold, either on its own or in combination with PRP or CBMA. Outcome measures at 6 months included mechanical testing, International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) repair score, modified O'Driscoll histology score, qualitative histology, and immunohistochemistry for type I, II, and VI collagen. RESULTS: No differences in mechanical properties, ICRS repair score, or modified O'Driscoll score were detected between the 4 groups. However, qualitative assessments of the histological architecture, Safranin O content, and collagen immunohistochemistry indicated that in the PRP/scaffold groups, there was a more hyaline cartilage-like tissue repair. In addition, the addition of CBMA and PRP to the scaffold reduced cyst formation in the subchondral bone of healed lesions. CONCLUSION: There was more hyaline cartilage-like tissue formed in the PRP/scaffold group and less subchondral cystic lesion formation in the CBMA and PRP/scaffold groups, although there were no quantitative differences in the repair tissue formed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".