MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990715317 · doi:10.3357/asem.3898.2014

3D Printing of Surgical Instruments for Long-Duration Space Missions

2014· article· en· W1990715317 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Space and Environmental Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
Keywords3d printedFused deposition modelingThermoplastic3D printingAcrylonitrile butadiene styreneBendingMaterials scienceForcepsComposite materialBiomedical engineeringSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The first off-Earth fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer will explore thermoplastic manufacturing capabilities in microgravity. This study evaluated the feasibility of FDM 3D printing 10 acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) thermoplastic surgical instruments on Earth. METHODS: Three-point bending tests compared stiffness and yield strength between FDM 3D printed and conventionally manufactured ABS thermoplastic. To evaluate the relative speed of using four printed instruments compared to conventional instruments, 13 surgeons completed simulated prepping, draping, incising, and suturing tasks. Each surgeon ranked the performance of six printed instruments using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: At a thickness of 5.75 mm or more, the FDM printing process had a less than 10% detrimental effect on the tested yield strength and stiffness of horizontally printed ABS thermoplastic relative to conventional ABS thermoplastic. Significant weakness was observed when a bending load was applied transversely to a 3D printed layer. All timed tasks were successfully performed using a printed sponge stick, towel clamp, scalpel handle, and toothed forceps. There was no substantial difference in time to completion of simulated surgical tasks with control vs. 3D printed instruments. Of the surgeons, 100%, 92%, 85%, 77%, 77%, and 69% agreed that the printed smooth and tissue forceps, curved and straight hemostats, tissue and right angle clamps, respectively, would perform adequately. DISCUSSION: It is feasible to 3D print ABS thermoplastic surgical instruments on Earth. Loadbearing structures were designed to be thicker, when possible. Printing orientations were selected so that the printing layering direction of critical structures would not be transverse to bending loads.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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