Effect of twisting hamstring tendon grafts on strength and joint laxity through the range of knee movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twisting or braiding of hamstring tendon grafts for use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions has been advocated to increase their strength and stiffness under load. In this study, a two-dimensional model was used to determine the failure strength of twisted and parallel grafts and associated knee laxity under simulated physiological loading conditions. For validation, mechanical tests of tendon grafts were also simulated with these models. The simulated physiological loading of the graft models showed that knees with twisted grafts had greater laxity than knees with parallel grafts, although there was little difference in failure load between the two graft configurations. The tensile loading of the graft models showed little difference in failure load when the tendons were modelled using line segments. When the tendons were considered as three-dimensional helical elements, which more accurately describe the tendon structure, the failure load of the twisted graft decreased significantly. This research provided no evidence to support the belief that a twisted tendon graft is a superior graft configuration relative to a parallel tendon graft.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".