MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W175327521

Biomechanical analysis of fracture risk associated with tibia deformity in children with osteogenesis imperfecta: a finite element analysis.

2014· article· en· W175327521 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Caouette, Frank Rauch, Isabelle Villemure, Marie Gdalevitch, J L Heng

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteogenesis imperfectaTibiaMedicineSagittal planeOrthodonticsBowingDeformityCoronal planeFinite element methodTibia FractureFibulaSurgeryStructural engineeringAnatomyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) frequently leads to long-bone bowing requiring a surgical intervention in severe cases to avoid subsequent fractures. However, there are no objective criteria to decide when to perform such intervention. The objective is to develop a finite element model to predict the risk of tibial fracture associated with tibia deformity in patients with OI. METHODS: A comprehensive FE model of the tibia was adapted to match bi-planar radiographs of a 7 year-old girl with OI. Ten additional models with different deformed geometries (from 2° to 24°) were created and the elasto-plastic mechanical properties were adapted to reflect OI conditions. Loads were obtained from mechanography of two-legged hopping. Two additional impact cases (lateral and torsion) were also simulated. Principal strain levels were used to define a risk criterion. RESULTS: Fracture risks for the two-legged hopping load case remained low and constant until tibia bowing reached 15° and 16° in sagittal and coronal planes respectively. Fracture risks for lateral and torsion impact were equivalent whatever the level of tibial bowing. CONCLUSIONS: The finite element model of OI tibia provides an objective means of assessing the necessity of surgical intervention for a given level of tibia bowing in OI-affected children.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207