MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307232116 · doi:10.1152/ajpcell.00336.2022

Mechano-bioengineering of the knee meniscus

2022· review· en· W4307232116 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiyao Ma, Margaret J. Vyhlidal, David Li, Adetola B. Adesida

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity Hospital FoundationGovernment of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Cancer FoundationFaculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of AlbertaWomen and Children's Health Research Institute
KeywordsMeniscusOsteoarthritisKnee JointTissue engineeringBiomedical engineeringBiomechanicsMaterials scienceMedicineAnatomySurgeryPathologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The meniscus is a fibrocartilaginous structure of the knee joint that serves a crucial role in joint health and biomechanics. Degeneration or removal of the meniscus is known to lead to a chronic and debilitating disease known as knee osteoarthritis, whose prevalence is expected to increase in the next few decades. Meniscus bioengineering has been developed as a potential alternative to current treatment methods, wherein meniscus-like tissues are engineered using cells, materials, and biomechanical stimuli. The application of mechanical stimulation in meniscus bioengineering has presented varied results but, for the most part, it has been shown to enhance meniscus-like tissue formation. In this review, we summarized literature over the last 10 years of various mechanical stimuli applied in bioengineering meniscus tissues. The role of individual loading types is examined, and the effects on engineered meniscus are evaluated on both molecular and tissue levels. In addition, simulated microgravity is highlighted as a new area of interest in meniscus engineering, and its potential use as a disease-driving platform is discussed. Taken together, with the increased understanding of the effects of mechanical stimulation on bioengineered meniscus tissues, the most suitable loading regime could be developed for meniscus tissue engineering and osteoarthritis 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Cell PhysiologySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207