Evaluation of a computational model to predict elbow range of motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer models capable of predicting elbow flexion and extension range of motion (ROM) limits would be useful for assisting surgeons in improving the outcomes of surgical treatment of patients with elbow contractures. A simple and robust computer-based model was developed that predicts elbow joint ROM using bone geometries calculated from computed tomography image data. The model assumes a hinge-like flexion-extension axis, and that elbow passive ROM limits can be based on terminal bony impingement. The model was validated against experimental results with a cadaveric specimen, and was able to predict the flexion and extension limits of the intact joint to 0° and 3°, respectively. The model was also able to predict the flexion and extension limits to 1° and 2°, respectively, when simulated osteophytes were inserted into the joint. Future studies based on this approach will be used for the prediction of elbow flexion-extension ROM in patients with primary osteoarthritis to help identify motion-limiting hypertrophic osteophytes, and will eventually permit real-time computer-assisted navigated excisions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".