Controversies in spine research: Organ culture versus in vivo models for studies of the intervertebral disc
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervertebral disc degeneration is a common cause of low back pain, the leading cause of disability worldwide. Appropriate preclinical models for intervertebral disc research are essential to achieving a better understanding of underlying pathophysiology and for the development, evaluation, and translation of more effective treatments. To this end, in vivo animal and ex vivo organ culture models are both widely used by spine researchers; however, the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches are a source of ongoing controversy. In this article, members from the Spine and Preclinical Models Sections of the Orthopedic Research Society, including experts in both basic and translational spine research, present contrasting arguments in support of in vivo animal models versus ex vivo organ culture models for studies of the disc, supported by a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. The objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the respective advantages and limitations of these approaches, and advance the field toward a consensus with respect to appropriate model selection and implementation. We conclude that complementary use of several model types and leveraging the unique advantages of each is likely to result in the highest impact research in most instances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it