Quality of Cartilage Repair from Marrow Stimulation Correlates with Cell Number, Clonogenic, Chondrogenic, and Matrix Production Potential of Underlying Bone Marrow Stromal Cells in a Rabbit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Previous studies have shown that intrinsic behavior of subchondral bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) is influenced by donors and locations. To understand the variability in cartilage repair outcomes following bone marrow stimulation, we tested the hypothesis that in vivo cartilage repair correlates with in vitro biological properties of BMSCs using a rabbit model. Methods Full-thickness cartilage defects were created in the trochlea and condyle in one knee of skeletally mature New Zealand White rabbits ( n = 8) followed by microdrilling. Three-week repair tissues were analyzed by macroscopic International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) scores, O’Driscoll histological scores, and Safranin-O (Saf-O) and type-II collagen (Coll-II) % stain. BMSCs isolated from contralateral knees were assessed for cell yield, surface marker expression, CFU-f, %Saf-O, and %Coll-II in pellet culture followed by correlation analyses with the above cartilage repair responses. Results In vivo cartilage repair scores showed strong, positive correlation with cell number, clonogenic, chondrogenic, and matrix production (Coll-II, GAG) potential of in vitro TGF-βIII stimulated BMSC cultures. Trochlear repair showed clear evidence of donor dependency and strong correlation was observed for interdonor variation in repair and the above in vitro properties of trochlear BMSCs. Correlation analyses indicated that donor- and location-dependent variability observed in cartilage repair can be attributed to variation in the properties of BMSCs in underlying subchondral bone. Conclusion Variation in cell number, clonogenic, chondrogenic, and matrix production potential of BMSCs correlated with repair response observed in vivo and appear to be responsible for interanimal variability as well as location-dependent repair.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".