The Biomechanical Effect of Proximal Tumor Defect Location on Femur Pathological Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The femur is the most common long bone affected by cancerous metastasis. Femoral tumor defects are known to induce pain and functional impairment in patients. Although prior studies exist evaluating the clinical and biomechanical effect of tumor defect size, no biomechanical studies have experimentally examined the risk of pathological fracture with respect to the anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral surfaces on which a proximal tumor defect is located on the femur. METHODS: Circular tumor-like defects of 40-mm diameter were created proximally in the subtrochanteric region on the Anterior (n = 5), Posterior (n = 5), Medial (n = 5), and Lateral (n = 5) sides of 20 synthetic femurs. Intact femurs served as a control group (n = 4). Femurs were tested for lateral, "offset" torsional, and axial stiffness, as well as axial strength. RESULTS: Lateral stiffnesses (range, 121-162 N/mm) yielded no differences between groups (P = 0.069). "Offset" torsional stiffnesses (range, 135-188 N/mm) demonstrated that the Medial group was less stiff than the Intact, Anterior, and Lateral groups (P ≤ 0.012). Axial stiffnesses (range, 1057-1993 N/mm) showed that the Medial group was less stiff than the Intact group (P = 0.006). Axial strengths (range, 3250-6590 N) for the Medial group were lower than Anterior (P = 0.001) and Posterior (P = 0.001) specimens, whereas the Lateral group had a lower strength than Anterior specimens (P = 0.019). No other statistical differences were noted. Axial failure of Medial and Lateral specimens involved the tumor-like defect in 100% of cases, whereas 100% of Intact femurs and 80% of Anterior and Posterior femur groups failed only through the neck. CONCLUSIONS: In 2 of 3 test modes, the Medial tumor-like defect group resulted in statistically lower stiffness values compared with Intact femurs and had lower strength than Anterior and Posterior groups in axial failure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".