The Anterior Dural (Hofmann) Ligaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. A dissection-based study of 18 embalmed cadavers (7 male, 11 female), mean age 84 (±8.4) years. Objective. To determine the morphology and morphometry of the anterior dural (Hofmann) ligaments. Summary of Background Data. The attachment of the posterior longitudinal ligament to the dura mater is poorly understood. Anterior dural ligaments connect the anterior dura to the deep layer of the posterior longitudinal ligament, but appear to be limited to the lumbar region and have been observed to have a craniocaudal orientation. Their function is reported to help in supporting and protecting the dural sac and spinal cord. Methods. The spinal canal was opened exposing the dural sac, the spinal nerve roots incised, and spinal cord removed to mobilize the dural sac and gain access to Hofmann ligaments. The extent, orientation, length, and level of origin and insertion of the ligaments were documented. Results. The orientation of the ligaments changed from caudocranial (dura to posterior longitudinal ligament) at upper thoracic levels to transverse at the level of T8–T9 to craniocaudal at lower thoracic and lumbar levels, often with multiple ligaments being present at a single level. Ligament length varied from 0.5 to 28.8 mm and was positively correlated with vertebral level and negatively correlated with orientation. Conclusions. Hofmann ligaments are present at most levels between C7 and L5; although most ligaments were limited to a single vertebral segment, some were observed to cross several segments. Anterior dural (Hofmann) ligaments were observed between C7 and L5, with their orientation changing from caudocranial (dura to posterior longitudinal ligament) to transverse to craniocaudal on descending the vertebral column. Although most ligaments were limited to a single vertebral segment, some crossed several segments; multiple ligaments were often present at each vertebral level.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".