MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280600351 · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2022.116432

In vivo microCT-based time-lapse morphometry reveals anatomical site-specific differences in bone (re)modeling serving as baseline parameters to detect early pathological events

2022· article· en· W4280600351 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. E. Young, Maximilian Rummler, Hubert M. Taïeb, Daniela S. Garske, Agnes Ellinghaus, Georg N. Duda, Bettina M. Willie, Amaia Cipitria

Bibliographic record

VenueBone · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
FundersInternational Max Planck Research School for Environmental, Cellular and Molecular MicrobiologyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftShriners Hospitals for Children
KeywordsTibiaBiomedical engineeringCortical boneIn vivoFemurBone remodelingAnatomyMedicineBiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bone structure is very dynamic and continuously adapts its geometry to external stimuli by modeling and remodeling the mineralized tissue. In vivo microCT-based time-lapse morphometry is a powerful tool to study the temporal and spatial dynamics of bone (re)modeling. Here an advancement in the methodology to detect and quantify site-specific differences in bone (re)modeling of 12-week-old BALB/c nude mice is presented. We describe our method of quantifying new bone surface interface readouts and how these are influenced by bone curvature. This method is then used to compare bone surface (re)modeling in mice across different anatomical regions to demonstrate variations in the rate of change and spatial gradients thereof. Significant differences in bone (re)modeling baseline parameters between the metaphyseal and epiphyseal, as well as cortical and trabecular bone of the distal femur and proximal tibia are shown. These results are validated using conventional static in vivo microCT analysis. Finally, the insights from these new baseline values of physiological bone (re)modeling were used to evaluate pathological bone (re)modeling in a pilot breast cancer bone metastasis model. The method shows the potential to be suitable to detect early pathological events and track their spatio-temporal development in both cortical and trabecular bone. This advancement in (re)modeling surface analysis and defined baseline parameters according to distinct anatomical regions will be valuable to others investigating various disease models with site-distinct local alterations in bone (re)modeling.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoneSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207