Experimental and Computational Approach Investigating Burst Fracture Augmentation Using PMMA and Calcium Phosphate Cements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to use a computational and experimental approach to evaluate, compare and predict the ability of calcium phosphate (CaP) and poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) augmentation cements to restore mechanical stability to traumatically fractured vertebrae, following a vertebroplasty procedure. Traumatic fractures (n = 17) were generated in a series of porcine vertebrae using a drop-weight method. The fractured vertebrae were imaged using μCT and tested under axial compression. Twelve of the fractured vertebrae were randomly selected to undergo a vertebroplasty procedure using either a PMMA (n = 6) or a CaP cement variation (n = 6). The specimens were imaged using μCT and re-tested. Finite element models of the fractured and augmented vertebrae were generated from the μCT data and used to compare the effect of fracture void fill with augmented specimen stiffness. Significant increases (p < 0.05) in failure load were found for both of the augmented specimen groups compared to the fractured group. The experimental and computational results indicated that neither the CaP cement nor PMMA cement could completely restore the vertebral mechanical behavior to the intact level. The effectiveness of the procedure appeared to be more influenced by the volume of fracture filled rather than by the mechanical properties of the cement itself.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".