The Periosteal Bone Surface is Less Mechano-Responsive than the Endocortical
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dynamic processes modify bone micro-structure to adapt to external loading and avoid mechanical failure. Age-related cortical bone loss is thought to occur because of increased endocortical resorption and reduced periosteal formation. Differences in the (re)modeling response to loading on both surfaces, however, are poorly understood. Combining in-vivo tibial loading, in-vivo micro-tomography and finite element analysis, remodeling in C57Bl/6J mice of three ages (10, 26, 78 week old) was analyzed to identify differences in mechano-responsiveness and its age-related change on the two cortical surfaces. Mechanical stimulation enhanced endocortical and periosteal formation and reduced endocortical resorption; a reduction in periosteal resorption was hardly possible since it was low, even without additional loading. Endocortically a greater mechano-responsiveness was identified, evident by a larger bone-forming surface and enhanced thickness of formed bone packets, which was not detected periosteally. Endocortical mechano-responsiveness was better conserved with age, since here adaptive response declined continuously with aging, whereas periosteally the main decay in formation response occurred already before adulthood. Higher endocortical mechano-responsiveness is not due to higher endocortical strains. Although it is clear structural adaptation varies between different bones in the skeleton, this study demonstrates that adaptation varies even at different sites within the same 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".