MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596347691 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002025

Current State of DBM

2017· article· en· W2596347691 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher D. Chaput

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMesenchymal stem cell research
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinedBmMesenchymal stem cellIn vivoBone marrowIn vitroIn vitro toxicologyProcess validationSterilization (economics)Biomedical engineeringBiotechnologyPathologyComputer scienceBiochemistryNew product developmentTelecommunicationsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2005, demineralized bone matrices (DBMs) are subject to the 510(k) premarket approval process, during which they must demonstrate the potential to induce bone formation. However, differences between lots of DBM from the same supplier can be significant, and the manner in which producers test each lot to ensure some degree of osteoinductivity varies considerably. Some companies rely on in vivo assays, and others use in vitro assays of biomarkers as a surrogate. In addition, some producers of DBM might test it after acid removal and early processing, but others might perform terminal product testing after the addition of a carrier and final aseptic processing or sterilization. How well in vitro assays correlate with established animal models is a topic of debate in the literature, and no generally accepted in vitro assay is currently available. In hopes of eliminating the need for animal testing, our research group demonstrated that mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) can be used to determine which bone graft extenders induced markers for bone formation.1 However, we found this approach potentially problematic for two reasons: (A) some products tend to dissolve so quickly in culture that MSCs have little surface area to which to adhere, and (B) some DBM formulations and nonorganic carriers are so basic or acidic that they are cytotoxic and kill the MSCs (Figure 1). Buffering has not proved helpful for the most basic products (bioactive glass). This work shows that surgeons should be conscious of pH issues because placing cells from autograft or bone marrow aspirate in contact with products that do not have a near physiologic pH on the “back table” for long periods might lead to cell death.Figure 1: Average pH value of substrates buffered in human plasma over 48 hours, with pH after buffering in phosphate-buffered saline shown in parentheses.The rat muscle pouch continues to be the preferred method of documenting osteoinductivity, and standardized methods have been described (ASTM 2529-13). It makes the most sense to perform the test on the final product of each lot of DBM, as it would be done clinically, as this is the only way to account for all variables in the manufacturing process. Although this does not guarantee clinical success, it is the most pragmatic way to ensure that each lot has the potential to induce bone formation after final processing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1260.080

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 topicMesenchymal stem cell researchFrench-language works237,207