MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725477209 · doi:10.1002/jor.23637

Histological and reference system for the analysis of mouse intervertebral disc

2017· article· en· W2725477209 on OpenAlexafffund
Vivian Tam, Wilson Chan, Vyl Leung, Kathryn S.E. Cheah, Kmc Cheung, Daisuke Sakai, Matthew R. McCann, Jake Bedore, Cheryle A. Séguin, Danny Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAOSpine
KeywordsIntervertebral discDegeneration (medical)PathologyGenetically modified mouseDegenerative disc diseaseAnnulus (botany)BiologyMedicineAnatomyTransgeneGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new scoring system based on histo-morphology of mouse intervertebral disc (IVD) was established to assess changes in different mouse models of IVD degeneration and repair. IVDs from mouse strains of different ages, transgenic mice, or models of artificially induced IVD degeneration were assessed. Morphological features consistently observed in normal, and early/later stages of degeneration were categorized into a scoring system focused on nucleus pulposus (NP) and annulus fibrosus (AF) changes. "Normal NP" exhibited a highly cellularized cell mass that decreased with natural ageing and in disc degeneration. "Normal AF" consisted of distinct concentric lamellar structures, which was disrupted in severe degeneration. NP/AF clefts indicated more severe changes. Consistent scores were obtained between experienced and new users. Altogether, our scoring system effectively differentiated IVD changes in various strains of wild-type and genetically modified mice and in induced models of IVD degeneration, and is applicable from the post-natal stage to the aged mouse. This scoring tool and reference resource addresses a pressing need in the field for studying IVD changes and cross-study comparisons in mice, and facilitates a means to normalize mouse IVD assessment between different laboratories. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:233-243, 2018.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations120
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207