MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980956609 · doi:10.1504/ijecb.2012.049775

The path to developing realistic finite element long bone models

2012· article· en· W1980956609 on OpenAlex
Anthony G. Au, Alidad Amirfazli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Experimental and Computational Biomechanics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodRepresentation (politics)Parametric statisticsComputer sciencePath (computing)Relevance (law)Computational modelMathematical optimizationAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current computational capabilities allow for rapid construction of finite element (FE) models but do not guarantee representative models. Simplifications to FE models are necessary because of computational limitations and scarcity of physiological data. With proper modelling and validation, FE models can progress from the realm of parametric studies to clinical applicability. It is often unclear, in the preliminary stages of FE model development, what simplifications are suitable without sacrificing solution accuracy and clinical relevance. This paper presents a technique to create proper FE long bone models for those wanting to develop their own studies. It highlights four important parameters (geometry, material properties, loading conditions, validation) that must be carefully considered and presents a number of methods to aid in achieving proper representation of each parameter. Knee bones are used as an example but the technique can be extended to reconstruct different long bones in the human body with some adjustments.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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