MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323363961 · doi:10.3389/fdmed.2023.1124968

Periodontal regeneration: Lessons from the periodontal ligament-cementum junction in diverse animal models

2023· article· en· W4323363961 on OpenAlexafffund
Eli D. Sone, Christopher A. McCulloch

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Dental Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCementumPeriodontal fiberCementogenesisRegeneration (biology)DentistryPeriodontitisMedicineClinical attachment lossDental cementumBiologyDentinCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The attachment of the roots of mammalian teeth of limited eruption to the jawbone is reliant in part on the mineralization of collagen fibrils of the periodontal ligament (PDL) at their entry into bone and cementum as Sharpey's fibers. In periodontitis, a high prevalence infection of periodontal tissues, the attachment apparatus of PDL to the tooth root is progressively destroyed. Despite the pervasiveness of periodontitis and its attendant healthcare costs, and regardless of decades of research into various possible treatments, reliable restoration of periodontal attachment after surgery is not achievable. Notably, treatment outcomes in animal studies have often demonstrated more positive regenerative outcomes than in human clinical studies. Conceivably, defining how species diversity affects cementogenesis and cementum/PDL regeneration could be instructive for informing novel and more efficacious treatment strategies. Here we briefly review differences in cementum and PDL attachment in commonly used animal models to consider how species differences may lead to enhanced regenerative outcomes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.307
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Dental MedicineSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207