MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407026666 · doi:10.1016/j.jot.2024.10.009

Charting a quarter-century of commercial cartilage regeneration products

2025· review· en· W4407026666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xinyi Liu, Xiaolei Guo, Yixuan Amy Pei, Ming Pei, Zigang Ge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Translation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Beijing MunicipalityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Science and Technology, PakistanMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaWest Virginia University
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Regeneration (biology)CartilageBusinessMedicineBiologyAnatomyGeographyCell biologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Functional cartilage regeneration remains difficult to achieve despite decades of research. Dozens of commercial products have been proposed, with each targeting different facets of successful cartilage engineering, including mechanical properties, integration, lubrication and inflammation; however, there remains a lack of breakthroughs in meaningful clinical outcomes. Prior research categorized commercial products based on their components and elucidated challenges faced during the market approval process. This paper, for the first time, comprehensively reviews the properties of commercial products covering the last 25 years, including design trends in components, compatibility with minimally invasive surgery, indications for cartilage defects, long-term follow-up, as well as active sponsorship support of the International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society (ICRS). We aim to summarize the key factors for potentially successful commercial products and elucidate overarching trends in technology development in this field. Given that no revolutionary products have yielded significantly improved clinical results, emerging products compete with one another on user-friendliness and cost-efficiency. Other relevant characteristics include compatibility with minimally invasive surgery, extensiveness of required surgery (one-stage vs. two-stage), use of versatile artificial polymers and application of cells and biomaterials. Specific products continue to lead the market due to their cost-efficiency or indications for larger cartilage defects. However, they have been shown to result in no significant improvement upon clinical follow-up. Thus, there is a need for products that surpass current commercial products and show clinical effectiveness. Translation potential of this article : This review analyzes product components, compatibility with minimally invasive surgery, indication for cartilage defect areas, clinical performance as well as sponsorship for the World Conference of International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society, based on information about cartilage regeneration products from 1997 to 2023. It shines a light on future development of design and commercialization of cartilage products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TranslationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207