How osteons form: A quantitative hypothesis-testing analysis of cortical pore filling and wall asymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteon morphology provides valuable information about the interplay between different processes involved in bone remodelling. The correct quantitative interpretation of these morphological features is challenging due to the complexity of interactions between osteoblast behaviour, and the evolving geometry of cortical pores during pore closing. We present a combined experimental and mathematical modelling study to provide insights into bone formation mechanisms during cortical bone remodelling based on histological cross-sections of quiescent human osteons and hypothesis-testing analyses. We introduce wall thickness asymmetry as a measure of the local asymmetry of bone formation within an osteon and examine the frequency distribution of wall thickness asymmetry in cortical osteons from human iliac crest bone samples from women 16-78 years old. Our measurements show that most osteons possess some degree of asymmetry, and that the average degree of osteon asymmetry in cortical bone evolves with age. We then propose a comprehensive mathematical model of cortical pore filling that includes osteoblast secretory activity, osteoblast elimination, osteoblast embedment as osteocytes, and osteoblast crowding and redistribution along the bone surface. The mathematical model is first calibrated to symmetric osteon data, and then used to test three mechanisms of asymmetric wall formation against osteon data: (i) delays in the onset of infilling around the cement line; (ii) heterogeneous osteoblastogenesis around the bone perimeter; and (iii) heterogeneous osteoblast secretory rate around the bone perimeter. Our results suggest that wall thickness asymmetry due to off-centred Haversian pores within osteons, and that nonuniform lamellar thicknesses within osteons are important morphological features that can indicate the prevalence of specific asymmetry-generating mechanisms. This has significant implications for the study of disruptions of bone formation as it could indicate what biological bone formation processes may become disrupted with age or disease.
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 | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".