MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416640407 · doi:10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100708

Distribution of epiphyseal nutrient foramina in the distal femur: Implications for anterior knee joint denervation

2025· article· en· W4416640407 on OpenAlexaff
John Tran, IG BELL, Brent A. Lanting, Zachary L. McCormick, Eldon Loh

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventional Pain Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity HospitalParkwood InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenervationBlood supplyJoint (building)Knee JointFemurDistribution (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sensory afferents supplying subchondral bone could mediate pain from the knee joint. Intrinsic innervation originates externally and follows blood vessels through nutrient foramina. Therefore, targeting the intrinsic innervation of subchondral bone can be achieved by capturing extrinsic innervation prior to their entry into the nutrient foramina. Understanding of extrinsic innervation of the knee joint as well as the distribution of the epiphyseal nutrient foramina are important. Currently, the distribution of nutrient foramina has not been analyzed. The objective of this osteological study was to quantify the distribution of nutrient foramina in the distal femur to inform knee joint denervation strategies. Methods: A convenience sample of 19 bony femurs was used in this study. The distal end of each specimen was photographed to obtain standardized lateral, medial, and anterior views. The location of nutrient foramina was documented. Each photograph was imported into ImageJ and the distribution of nutrient foramina was quantified. Results: Location of epiphyseal nutrient foramina was variable on distal femur. Laterally, distribution of nutrient foramina showed percentages of 11.5 %, 44.7 %, 36.5 %, and 7.3 % in the first, second, third, and fourth quadrants, respectively. Distribution on the medial distal femur showed percentages of 12.4 %, 40.4 %, 35.5 %, and 11.5 % in the first, second, third, and fourth quadrants, respectively. Anteriorly, distribution showed a difference between the medial and lateral halves with percentages of 71.1 % and 28.9 %, respectively. Conclusions: Epiphyseal nutrient foramina are important conduits that enable extrinsic innervation to enter and supply the subchondral bone. The location and distribution of the nutrient foramina of the distal femur reported in this study can be used to optimize nerve blocks and denervation techniques to manage chronic knee joint pain from osteoarthritis.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventional Pain MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207