BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION OF INTERVERTEBRAL DISCS FOLLOWING A BURST FRACTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thoracolumbar burst fracture is one of the most common and most studied injuries of the spine. Radiography and quantitative discomanometry have previously demonstrated that intervertebral discs adjacent to a burst fracture were disrupted; however, there have been conflicting data on the properties of the next-adjacent discs. Also, no data exists on the localization of injury within each disc. The objective of this study is to use an in vitro biomechanical design to examine the flexibility differences of intervertebral discs adjacent and next-adjacent to burst fracture vertebrae. Ten cadaveric thoracolumbar (T11–L3) spines with L1 burst fracture included adjacent (T12–L1, L1–L2) and next-adjacent (T11–T12, L2–L3) intervertebral discs. The bending flexibilities (μm/N) of each disc under 50 N of compression were determined at 25 points: the center point, along with the combinations of three radii (1 cm, 2 cm, 3 cm) and eight angles. The overall flexibility of each disc and the presence of any regional differences were then evaluated. Across all radii, the T11μT12 disc was statistically less flexible than the other three discs (p < 0.01). The difference between the flexibilities of the average anterior region and the average posterior region was significant at many 2-cm and all 3-cm radii; this difference was greater in the T12–L1 disc than in any of the other three discs. Thus, the upper next-adjacent intervertebral disc (T11–T12) was not as susceptible to mechanical disruption as were the other three discs. The anterior region of each disc may also have a higher propensity for mechanical disruption than the posterior region, especially at larger radii.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".