4.3 Article

A proposed screening algorithm for bone remodelling

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED MATHEMATICS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 806-819

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0956792520000418

关键词

Mathematical modelling and simulation; bone remodelling; biological algorithms; cellular automata; osteocytes

资金

  1. MINECO [MTM2017-85020-P]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Madrid, Spain) [PI18/01757]
  3. Roechling Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The process of bone remodelling involves continuous renewal of bone at a microscopic scale to maintain mechanical compliance of the skeleton. This process can be represented at an algorithmic level as the interplay of screening and renovation mechanisms, with efficient screening achieved through simple local rules inspired by individual bone cells computing signals from their nearest local neighbours.
One of the most remarkable aspects of human homoeostasis is bone remodelling. This term denotes the continuous renewal of bone that takes place at a microscopic scale and ensures that our skeleton preserves its full mechanical compliance during our lives. We propose here that a renewal process of this type can be represented at an algorithmic level as the interplay of two different but related mechanisms. The first of them is a preliminary screening process, by means of which the whole skeleton is thoroughly and continuously explored. This is followed by a renovation process, whereby regions previously marked for renewal are first destroyed and then rebuilt, in such a way that global mechanical compliance is never compromised. In this work, we pay attention to the first of these two stages. In particular, we show that an efficient screening mechanism may arise out of simple local rules, which at the biological level are inspired by the possibility that individual bone cells compute signals from their nearest local neighbours. This is shown to be enough to put in place a process which thoroughly explores the region where such mechanism operates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据