Force relaxation and sprinback of novel elastic orthopedic cables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Cerclage cables have proven to be very useful in the orthopedic field for bones stabilization and plate fixation but the initial enthusiasm for metallic cables has declined with their high complication rates. Metal materials provide limited elastic deformation compromising their ability to maintain compression. This study compares the mechanical properties of new elastic cables with cobalt-chrome and stainless-steel cables. METHODS: Stainless-steel, cobalt-chrome, nylon and nickel-titanium cables were first loaded up to 356 N, then elongation was maintained for 12 hours, next unloaded and finally reloaded to failure. Initial elongation (%), Relative force relaxation (% loss of initial load after a 12h), elastic springback (%) and force to failure (N) were extracted from force-elongation curves. FINDINGS: Initial elongation was the highest for nylon cables (9%), followed by the nickel-titanium (4%) and both metallic cables (0.3%). During 12 hours, no relaxation was observed for the nickel-titanium and the cobalt-chrome cables, whereas 28 and 45% of the tension was lost respectively for the stainless-steel and the nylon cables. The elastic springback of the nickel-titanium and nylon cables (4.4 and 4.7% respectively) was 20 times higher than that of the stainless-steel and cobalt-chrome cables (0.12 and 0.16% respectively). The force to failure of the stainless steel and cobalt-chrome cables was twice that of the nickel-titanium cables. INTERPRETATION: Multi-braided stainless-steel and cobalt-chrome cables have a high-stiffness with limited ability to tolerate displacement, leading to early cable loosening. Novel low-stiffness cables made of nylon or nickel-titanium offer significant elastic springback improving binding stability.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".