Tibiofemoral loss of contact area but no changes in peak pressures after meniscectomy in a Lapine in vivo quadriceps force transfer model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The menisci are thought to modulate load transfer and to absorb shocks in the knee joint. No study has experimentally measured the meniscal functions in the intact, in vivo joint loaded by physiologically relevant muscular contractions. METHODS: Right knee joints of seven New Zealand white rabbits were loaded using isometric contractions of the quadriceps femoris muscles controlled by femoral nerve stimulation. Isometric knee extensor torques at the maximal and two submaximal force levels were performed at knee angles of 70°, 90°, 110°, and 130°. Patellofemoral and tibiofemoral contact areas and pressure distributions were measured using Fuji Presensor film inserted above and below the menisci and also with the menisci removed. RESULTS: Meniscectomy was associated with a decrease in tibiofemoral contact area ranging from 30 to 70% and a corresponding increase in average contact pressures. Contact areas measured below the menisci were consistently larger than those measured on top of the menisci. Contact areas in the patellofemoral joint (PFJ), and peak pressures in tibiofemoral and PFJs, were not affected by meniscectomy. Contact areas and peak pressures in all joints depended crucially on knee joint angle and quadriceps force: The more flexed the knee joint was, the larger were the contact areas and the higher were the peak pressures. CONCLUSIONS: In agreement with the literature, removal of the menisci was associated with significant decreases in tibiofemoral contact area and corresponding increases in average contact pressures, but surprisingly, peak pressures remained unaffected, indicating that the function of the menisci is to distribute loads across a greater contact area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".