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

Injection biomechanics of bone cements used in vertebroplasty

2004· article· en· W1211407729 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
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