Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining the phenotype of young healthy nucleus pulposus cells: Recommendations of the Spine Research Interest Group at the 2014 annual ORS meeting

Open access
Risbud, Makarand V., Schoepflin, Zachary R., Mwale, Fackson, Kandel, Rita A., Grad, Sibylle, Iatridis, James C., Sakai, Daisuke, Hoyland, Judith A.·2015·Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Abstract

Low back pain is a major physical and socioeconomic problem. Degeneration of the intervertebral disc and especially that of nucleus pulposus (NP) has been linked to low back pain. In spite of much research focusing on the NP, consensus among the research community is lacking in defining the NP cell phenotype. A consensus agreement will allow easier distinguishing of NP cells from annulus fibrosus (AF) cells and endplate chondrocytes, a better gauge of therapeutic success, and a better guidance of tissue‐engineering‐based regenerative strategies that attempt to replace lost NP tissue. Most importantly, a clear definition will further the understanding of physiology and function of NP cells, ultimately driving development of novel cell‐based therapeutic modalities. The Spine Research Interest Group at the 2014 Annual ORS Meeting in New Orleans convened with the task of compiling a working definition of the NP cell phenotype with hope that a consensus statement will propel disc research forward into the future. Based on evaluation of recent studies describing characteristic NP markers and their physiologic relevance, we make the recommendation of the following healthy NP phenotypic markers: stabilized expression of HIF‐1α, GLUT‐1, aggrecan/collagen II ratio >20, Shh, Brachyury, KRT18/19, CA12, and CD24. © 2015 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 33:???–???, 2015.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jor.22789

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Risbud, M. V., Schoepflin, Z. R., Mwale, F., Kandel, R. A., Grad, S., Iatridis, J. C., Sakai, D., & Hoyland, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-01-21
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
283-293
ISSN
  • 0736-0266 (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-527X
OpenAlex
W1817479092
Cited by
268
References
63
FWCI
13.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Defining the phenotype of young healthy nucleus pulposus cells: Recommendations of the Spine Research Interest Group at the 2014 annual ORS meeting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jor.22789
The paper
Risbud, M. V., Schoepflin, Z. R., Mwale, F., Kandel, R. A., Grad, S., Iatridis, J. C., Sakai, D., & Hoyland, J. A. (2015). Defining the phenotype of young healthy nucleus pulposus cells: Recommendations of the Spine Research Interest Group at the 2014 annual ORS meeting. Journal of Orthopaedic Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22789

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.