The material properties of the bovine acetabular labrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The compressive and tensile material properties of the bovine acetabular labrum were measured. Confined compression testing was used to determine the aggregate compressive modulus and the permeability of the labrum. The compressive modulus of the labrum (0.157 +/- 0.057 MPa) is comparable to that of the morphologically similar meniscus, and approximately one-quarter to one-half that of the adjoining acetabular cartilage. The permeability of the labrum (4.98 +/- 3.43 x 10(-16) m4/N s) was lower than that of the meniscus and cartilage. With a significantly higher resistance to interstitial fluid flow across the acetabular rim than along the rim. Specimens from the posterior and superior regions of the labrum were tested to failure in uniaxial tension. The maximum stress at failure (11.9 +/- 6.1 MPa), maximum strain at failure (26.5 +/- 7.6%) and tangent modulus (74.7 +/- 44.3 MPa) were similar to those reported for the bovine meniscus, and to other tissues composed of highly oriented collagen fiber bundles. In tension, the labrum is much stiffer (10-15 x) than the adjoining articular cartilage, and the posterior region of the labrum is significantly stiffer (45%) than the superior region. The labrum's low permeability may contribute to sealing of the hip joint. The high circumferential tensile stiffness of the labrum, together with its ring structure, reinforce the acetabular rim and may contribute to joint stability.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".