The various meanings and uses of bone “remodeling” in biological anthropology: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In modern bone biology, the term "remodeling" generally refers to internal bone turnover that creates secondary osteons. However, it is also widely used by skeletal biologists, including biological anthropologists as a catch-all term to refer to different skeletal changes. In this review, we investigated how "remodeling" is used across topics on skeletal biology in biological anthropology to demonstrate potential problems with such pervasive use of a generalized term. METHODS: Using PubMed and Google Scholar, we selected and reviewed 205 articles that use the term remodeling to describe skeletal processes and have anthropological implications. Nine edited volumes were also reviewed as examples of collaborative work by different experts to demonstrate the diverse and extensive use of the term remodeling. RESULTS: Four general meanings of bone "remodeling" were identified, namely, internal turnover, functional adaptation, fracture repair, and growth remodeling. Additionally, remodeling is also used to refer to a broad array of pathological skeletal changes. DISCUSSION: Although we initially identified four general meanings of bone remodeling, they are not mutually exclusive and often occur in combination. The term "remodeling" has become an extensively used catch-all term to refer to different processes and outcomes of skeletal changes, which inevitably lead to misunderstanding and a loss of information. Such ambiguity and confusion are potentially problematic as the field of biological anthropology becomes increasingly multidisciplinary. Therefore, we advocate for precise, context-specific definitions and explanations of bone remodeling as it continues to be used across disciplines within and beyond biological anthropology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".