MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2595252786 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002022

Biologics and Spine: Cells, Signaling, and Surfaces

2017· article· en· W2595252786 on OpenAlexaff
Ira L. Fedder

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMesenchymal stem cellCancellous boneStem cellCartilageBone marrowRegenerative medicineTissue engineeringBone healingCell biologyNeurosciencePathologyAnatomyBiologyBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For patients with spine pain, the future holds great promise. Treatment methods of the past reflect limited insight into the spine and include techniques used to treat patients with spine disorders that now seem rudimentary. Researchers are advancing our understanding of cellular biology and the ways in which cells communicate, and more efficient and effective treatments are already changing the treatment landscape. Surgeons relied on cortico-cancellous graft without instrumentation to stimulate fusion, although in retrospect, the properties and functions were not fully understood. Bone grafting failures led to the use of stainless-steel devices that provided stability but did not participate in a biological fashion to promote healing and strength. A new frontier has emerged. Autogenous and allogenic bone graft once thought to consist of dead tissue actually may contain cells and proteins that signal events that control formation of bone, cartilage, and/or soft tissue. A new era of tissue engineering is under way, with surgeons now injecting patients with proteins and other components of cancellous bone, including bone marrow, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and hematopoietic cells, to promote healing of tendons, cartilage, muscle, spinal cord, and ligaments, for example. Continued studies have led to our awareness that MSCs are pericytes that live on the capillary and are activated by trauma to move off the capillary and morph into stem cells that stimulate a healing response—resulting in a change in the definition of “MSCs” by Arnold Caplan, PhD, from “mesenchymal stem cells” to “medicinal signaling cells.” How do they talk to each other? When injected into the vein, how do stem cells move from the vasculature into the tissue? Much has been learned about orthopedic treatment at organ and cellular levels, but the next advances will occur at the molecular level—cell-to-cell signaling and cell-to-cell control. Ongoing research is examining ways to manipulate biomaterial at the nano level to make the orthopedic implant biologically active and able to participate in and enhance tissue repair and tissue engineering. We have discovered inside the stem cell the entire orchestra that we need to create and repair tissue. We have modified surfaces to make them more bioreactive. Revolutionary treatments for degenerative disease and spinal deformity and injury are at hand. We look forward to the future!

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207