MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793888838 · doi:10.1007/s11914-018-0423-2

The Role of the Immune Cells in Fracture Healing

2018· review· en· W2793888838 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Osteoporosis Reports · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune cells in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsBone healingOsteoimmunologyImmune systemMesenchymal stem cellBone marrowMedicineImmunologyCell biologyHaematopoiesisBone fractureBiologyStem cellAnatomyInternal medicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bone fracture healing is a complex physiological process relying on numerous cell types and signals. Inflammatory factors secreted by immune cells help to control recruitment, proliferation, differentiation, and activation of hematopoietic and mesenchymal cells. Within this review we will discuss the functional role of immune cells as it pertains to bone fracture healing. In doing so, we will outline the cytokines secreted and their effects within the healing fracture callus. RECENT FINDINGS: Macrophages have been found to play an important role in fracture healing. These immune cells signal to other cells of the fracture callus, modulating bone healing. Cytokines and cellular signals within fracture healing continue to be studied. The findings from this work have helped to reinforce the importance of osteoimmunity in bone fracture healing. Owing to these efforts, immunomodulation is emerging as a potential therapeutic target to improve bone fracture healing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.280 · 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