MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2396036840

CLINICAL EXPERIENCE WITH OSIGRAFT IN ITALY: MULTI-CENTER, OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2006· article· en· W2396036840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Casilli, Giulia Rizzuto, Stephen Salerno, Marco Fresa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectObservational studyTibiaRadiographySurgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BMPs, among which BMP-7 or OP-1, unlike several growth factors involved in new bone formation, are the only proteins able to start the whole process. That is BMPs are the only factors with osteoinduction ability. Contrary to other growth factors, BMPs on the market are drugs. RhOP-1, carried by collagen type 1, is the first osteo-inductive drug approved in the world for the clinical usage: in long-bone non-unions in US, Australia and Canada and in tibia non-unions, recalcitrant to autograft, in Europe (Osigraft). We report data related to a retrospective observation on some patients treated in Italy with rhOP-1. 90 patients (66 with long-bone non-union diagnosis, 8 with delayed union, 7 with bone defect /bone cyst and the remaining with other pathologies) are reported, and efficacy results are showed on 60 patients with follow-up > 6 months. Radiographic analysis shows that rhOP-1 is effective in 86,6% of patients. Unions have been reported in 34,8% at 4–5 months, and in 69,1% at 6–8 months. Failure: 8/60 (13,4%). No adverse event has been reported. These data are similar to those reported in literature in randomised and not randomised studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→