MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1211407729 · doi:10.1177/095929892004014004014

Injection biomechanics of bone cements used in vertebroplasty

2004· article· en· W1211407729 on OpenAlexaff
Gamal Baroud, Marc Bohner, Paul Heini, Thomas Steffen

Bibliographic record

VenueBio-Medical Materials and Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCementBone cementOsteoporosisDentistryBiomechanicsCalcium phosphate cementPopulationMedicineMaterials scienceComposite materialPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incidence of osteoporotic bone fractures is growing exponentially as the western population ages and as life expectancy increases. Vertebroplasty, where acrylic or calcium phosphate cement is injected into the weakened vertebrae to augment them, is an emerging procedure for treating spinal fragility fractures. However, cement injection is currently limited because there are no clear standards for a safe, reproducible and predictable procedure. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role that bone cements play in the underlying bio-mechanisms that affect the outcomes of cement injection. Our most important finding after combining clinical, laboratory and theoretical research is that the process of cement injection poses conflicting demands on bone cements. The cements are required to be more viscous and less viscous at the same time. The challenge therefore is to develop biomaterials, techniques and/or devices that can overcome or manage the conflicting demands on cement viscosity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations82
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBio-Medical Materials and EngineeringSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207