Comparative Biomechanical Evaluation of a Pin‐Sleeve Transfixation System in Cadaveric Calf Metacarpal Bones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare proximal fragment displacement and the peri-implant strain using a pin-sleeve cast (PSC) system and a transfixation pin cast (TPC) system on a cadaveric calf metacarpal bone fracture model. STUDY DESIGN: Experimental. SAMPLE POPULATION: Cadaveric calf metacarpal bones (n = 6 pairs). METHODS: Paired samples were instrumented with either the TPC or the PSC systems. Strain gauges were applied proximal to the transfixation implants and the bones encased in cast material. The distal part of the construct was removed to mimic an unstable distal comminuted fracture. Constructs were fixed to the material testing machine and initially loaded in axial compression in their elastic range to determine construct stiffness. Constructs were loaded cyclically with a sinusoidal curve that increased until failure. Variables compared statistically between constructs were the initial construct stiffness and, at given load points, the mean metacarpal axial displacement in loading and unloading condition and mean axial strain. RESULTS: Initial construct mean ± SD axial stiffness was not significantly different between constructs (PSC: 689 ± 258; TPC: 879 ± 306 N/mm). There was no significant difference between either investigated displacements of metacarpal bones transfixed with PSC and those transfixed with TPC at all load points. The PSC constructs had a significant decrease in the recorded mean strain (502 ± 340 μstrain) compared to the TPC construct (1738 ± 2218 μstrain). CONCLUSIONS: The PSC significantly reduced peri-implant strain with comparable axial displacement to the TPC in cadaveric calf metacarpal bones.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".