MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rapid assessment of the osteogenic capacity of hydroxyapatite/aragonite using a murine tibial periosteal ossification model

2024· article· en· W4404681468 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Steijvers, Hongfang Lu, Yitian Zhang, Feihu Zhao, Baichuan Wang, Louise Hughes, Jake E. Barralet, G. Degli‐Alessandrini, Igor Kraev, Richard Johnston, Zengwu Shao, Frank H. Ebetino, James T. Triffitt, R.G.G. Russell, Davide Deganello, Xu Cao, Zhidao Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueBioactive Materials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCardiff UniversityRoyal Society
KeywordsAragoniteOssificationMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringChemistryComposite materialAnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomaterials are widely used as orthopaedic implants and bone graft substitutes. We aimed to develop a rapid osteogenic assessment method using a murine tibial periosteal ossification model to evaluate the bone formation/remodelling potential of a biomaterial within 2–4 weeks. A novel hydroxyapatite/aragonite (HAA) biomaterial was implanted into C57BL/6 mice juxtaskeletally between the tibia and tibialis anterior muscle. Rapid intramembranous bone formation was observed at 14 days, with 4- to 8-fold increases in bone thickness and callus volume in comparison with sham-operated animals ( p < 0.0001), followed by bone remodelling and a new layer of cortical bone formation by 28 days after implantation. The addition of zoledronate, a clinically-utilised bisphosphonate, to HAA, promoted significantly more new bone formation than HAA alone over 28 days ( p < 0.01). The osteogenic potential of HAA was further confirmed by implanting into a 3.5 mm diameter femoral cancellous bone defect in rats and a 5 mm diameter femoral cortical bone defect in minipigs. To understand the biodegradation and the cellular activity at the cell/biomaterial interfaces, non-decalcified specimens were resin embedded and sections subjected to combined scanning electron microscopy (SEM)/electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD)/energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) analysis. We conclude that murine tibial periosteal ossification is a novel method for rapid assessment of the interaction of bioactive materials with osteogenic tissues. This study also highlights that combining calcium carbonate with hydroxyapatite enhances biodegradation and osteogenesis. A murine animal model for rapid assessment of osteogenesis. • A novel murine in vivo model enables rapid assessment of the bone formation capacity of a biomaterial within 14 days. • No bone defects or fractures are involved, ensuring minimal animal suffering. • Significant trabecular callus bone formation from tibial periosteal osteogenic cells is observed within 14 days, which remodels into a new cortical bone layer by 28 days. • New bone formation is quantifiable using μCT and histology, showing a four-to eight-fold increase in tibial thickness and callus formation. • The bone formation and remodelling capacity of HAA biomaterials are reproducible in bone defects in both rats and larger animals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioactive MaterialsSame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207