Evaluation of a short glass fibre-reinforced tube as a model for cat femur for biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biomechanical testing of tubes made of third generation short glass fibre-reinforced (SGFR) material approximating cat femurs was performed in order to determine their suitability as cat femur surrogates for the biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants. The tubes were tested in compression, three-point bending, notch testing, and screw pullout. Thin walled (B1-tubes) had a 13% lower maximum load to failure, a 19% higher maximum strength and a 13% lower elastic modulus compared to cat femurs tested in compression. B1-tubes maximum load to failure in three-point bending and screw pullout strength were considerably lower compared to cat femurs (29% and 63%, respectively). Notch testing was not performed on B1-tubes due to low bending strength. Thicker walled (B2-tubes) had a 23% higher maximum load to failure, a 10% higher maximum strength and a 21% lower elastic modulus compared to cat femurs tested in compression. The comparison of B2-tubes and cat femurs in three-point bending revealed a 7% increase in maximum load to failure for the B2-tubes. Drilled B2-tubes (notch testing) were weaker with a 30% lower load to failure compared to cat femurs. A screw pullout comparison of B2-tubes and cat femurs revealed a 2% increase in maximum load to failure for the B2-tubes. These tubes were intended to provide a model as a suitable surrogate for cat femurs for testing the bending strength of various orthopaedic constructs involving plates and screws. Testing revealed that third generation SGFR tubes were not suitable for these purposes and emphasizes the need to carefully evaluate the suitability of any model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".