Degradation of Proteoglycans and Collagen in Equine Meniscal Tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigate meniscal extracellular matrix degradation. Equine menisci (n = 34 from 17 horses) were studied. Site-matched sections were cut and scored from three regions (ROIs; n = 102) and stained for histology, proteoglycan (safranin O and fast green), aggrecan, and collagen cleavage (NITEGE, DIPEN, and C1,2C antibodies, respectively). Picrosirius red and second harmonic generation microscopy were performed to investigate collagen ultrastructure. A total of 42 ROIs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. The median (range) ROI histological score was 3 (0–9), providing a large spectrum of pathology. The median (range) proteoglycan score was 1 (0–3), representing superficial and central meniscal loss. The median (range) of DIPEN, NITEGE, and C1,2C scores was 1 (0–3), revealing immunostaining of the femoral and tibial surfaces. The proteoglycan scores exhibited significant positive associations with both histologic evaluation (p = 0.03) and DIPEN scores (p = 0.02). Additionally, a robust positive association (p = 0.007) was observed between the two aggrecanolysis indicators, NITEGE and DIPEN scores. A negative association (p = 0.008) was identified between NITEGE and histological scores. The C1,2C scores were not associated with any other scores. Picrosirius red and second harmonic generation microscopy (SHGM) illustrated the loss of the collagen matrix and structure centrally. Proteoglycan and collagen degradation commonly occur superficially in menisci and less frequently centrally. The identification of central meniscal proteoglycan and collagen degradation provides novel insight into central meniscal degeneration. However, further research is needed to elucidate the etiology and sequence of degradative events.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".