MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411212333 · doi:10.33424/futurum604

Knees, noses and NASA: how can microgravity help us study and test bioengineered cartilage?

2025· article· en· W4411212333 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adetola B. Adesida

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCartilageAerospace engineeringAeronauticsBiomedical engineeringMedicineEngineeringAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knees, noses and NASA: how can microgravity help us study and test bioengineered cartilage?Knee osteoarthritis is a debilitating condition that affects 250 million people worldwide, occurring when the tissues in the knee joint gradually deteriorate, leading to pain, stiffness and reduced mobility.Professor Adetola Adesida from the University of Alberta in Canada is studying this condition using microgravity and developing solutions using the latest bioengineering techniques.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207