Mechanical Characteristics of Cortical Bone Pins Designed for Fracture Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pins constructed from cortical bone may provide a reasonable alternative to other fracture-fixation devices by circumventing some of the complications associated with stainless steel and synthetic biodegradable implants. However, it is unknown whether cortical bone pins provide comparable strength compared to conventional pins. Using four-point bending, we compared the mechanical characteristics of 1.2-mm allogeneic cortical bone pins milled from specific regions of human tibiae and femora to commercially available 1.1-mm diameter stainless steel pins and 1.3-mm diameter polydioxanone pins. We used impact testing to identify mechanical differences in cortical bone pins between gender and harvest site. Cortical bone pins had better mechanical properties in four-point bending compared with polydioxanone pins, but not stainless steel pins. Pins milled from the right tibiae of males had the best bending characteristics. The mechanical performance of 1.2-mm cortical bone pins was comparable to those of stainless steel and polydioxanone pins regardless of site, bone, and gender. The clinical investigation of cortical bone pins as an implant for fracture fixation is warranted based on mechanical testing and comparison to commercially available polydioxanone and stainless steel pins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".