Methodological concerns using intra‐cortical pins to measure tibiofemoral kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complexity of human tibiofemoral joint motion is now better understood with the advancement of new methodologies to measure tibiofemoral kinematics in vivo. Marker clusters anchored to stainless steel bone pins inserted directly into the femur and tibia provide the most sensitive and accurate means for directly measuring skeletal tibiofemoral joint motion. Despite its invasiveness, this technique has been successful, although complications have been reported with the femoral pin and its insertion site. The purpose of this technical report is twofold: to review the difficulties with the femoral pin and its insertion site from a historical perspective, and to identify the load force required from biological tissue to permanently deform the pin. In addition, proposals in the advancement of this method are discussed in the context of reducing impingement with the femoral pin and the Iliotibial band. Because stainless steel exhibits plastic behaviour with no sharp yield point, Apex self-drilling/self-tapping bone pins underwent incremental loading on an Instron materials testing machine. Loads were transmitted perpendicular to the pin with the threads partially exposed and fully secured in vice. Since the accuracy of our combined stereophotogrammetry and Optoelectric motion analysis was less than 0.4 mm, it was decided that plastic deformation occurred after deflections of 0.4 mm. With exposed threads, deflections larger than 0.4 mm were observed at 150 N and 100 N when loads were applied at 15 mm and 20 mm from the vice (representative of where the tissue came in contact with the pin). Loads greater than 200 N produced deflections less than 0.2 mm when threads were fully inserted. The 90 Hz resonant frequency for the marker cluster-bone pin complex is beyond the spectrum of human movement and can be lowpass filtered. To reduce impingement and pin bending, one solution may be to implant pins with a shorter threaded section. By completely penetrating the bone, only the smooth surface of the pin is exposed which is more resistant to bending. Otherwise pins with larger diameters and longer longitudinal incisions about the femoral insertion site are an alternative. Lengthening the longitudinal incisions about the insertion site, and correctly aligning and inserting the femoral pin between the Iliotibial band and quadriceps tendon may diminish impingement. Performing dynamic open chain flexion and extension movements while on the operating table may aid in aligning the pin at the incision site. This may stretch the IT band and quadriceps tendon and may guide the femoral pin into a more optimal position prior to it being inserted into the cortex of the bone.
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 | 0.059 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".