IN SITU CHONDROCYTE MECHANICS FOLLOWING STATIC AND DYNAMIC COMPRESSIVE STRESSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Articular Cartilage (AC) is a thin layer of connective tissue covering bony surfaces of joints [1]. AC allows joints to move smoothly during load transmissions, and plays an essential part in their overall health [2]. Chondrocytes maintain AC extracellular matrix, the integrity of which depends largely on compressions applied to the tissue. Past studies used strain control protocols to apply static or dynamic compressions to AC and observe changes in chondrocyte morphology [1]. The purpose of this study was to use stress control, a more physiologically relevant loading protocol, and evaluate cell morphology for low magnitude dynamic/static compressions. METHODS Patellae from New Zealand white rabbits were isolated and randomly assigned to one of two loading protocols [2]; (i) static loading with a constant compression of 100kPa, and (ii) dynamic sinusoidal loading at 0.1Hz and a compressive magnitude of 100kPa±50%. Compression was applied for 60 min, followed by 30 min recovery. Cells were stained and tracked by laser scanning microscope during the compression protocol. RESULTS Cell volume remained nearly constant during static loading but increased beyond the original volume during recovery Fig(1a). Cell volume decreased during dynamic loading and recovered to its original, pre-loaded value following load removal. Cell height (along the tissue thickness axis) decreased for dynamic loading, while cell depth (perpendicular to the tissue thickness axis) increased Fig(1b). For static loading, there was little change in cell height, width and depth Fig(1c). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Little changes in cells’ morphology during static loading are likely due to a low compressive load of 100kPa. The volume increase during static loading has been previously observed in patellae cartilage [2]. Variations in cell deformations across samples during dynamic loading could be due to difference in structure and mechanical properties of the individual samples. We were limited in our analysis to observations of chondrocytes within 50 µm from the top surface of the articular cartilage. We are puzzled by the difference in mechanical response of cells in the static and dynamic loading conditions. These differences need explanation in the future by evaluating the cartilage internal stress-strain conditions for the static and dynamic loading conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".