Distinction between the extracellular matrix of the nucleus pulposus and hyaline cartilage: a requisite for tissue engineering of intervertebral disc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue engineering of intervertebral discs (IVD) using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) induced to differentiate into a disc-cell phenotype has been considered as an alternative treatment for disc degeneration. However, since there is no unique marker characteristic of discs and since hyaline cartilage and immature nucleus pulposus (NP) possess similar macromolecules in their extracellular matrix, it is currently difficult to recognize MSC conversion to a disc cell. This study was performed to compare the proteoglycan to collagen ratio (measured as GAG to hydroxyproline ratio) in the NP of normal disc to that of the hyaline cartilage of the endplate within the same group of individuals and test the hypothesis that this ratio can be used for in vivo studies to distinguish between a normal NP and hyaline cartilage phenotype. Whole human lumbar spine specimens from fresh cadavers, ranging in age from 12 weeks to 79 years, were used to harvest the IVDs and adjacent endplates. The GAG to hydroxyproline ratio within the NP of young adults is approximately 27:1, whereas the ratio within the hyaline cartilage endplate of the same aged individuals is about 2:1. The production of an extracellular matrix with a high proteoglycan to collagen ratio can be used in vivo to distinguish NP cells from chondrocytes, and could help in identifying a NP-like phenotype in vivo as opposed to a chondrocyte when MSCs are induced to differentiate for tissue engineering of a disc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".