Compressive Loading of the Spine May Affect the Spinal Canal Encroachment of Burst Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Spinal canal encroachment of burst fractures under different compressive loading. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the application of different compressive loads affect the spinal canal encroachment (SCE) of thoracolumbar burst fractures and to relate any significant encroachment differences to the fracture morphology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SCE is an important part of the evaluation process of thoracolumbar burst fractures. It is, however, not well understood how a variation in spinal internal loads resulting from a change in patient posture may affect the SCE after a burst fracture. The application of a compressive load on fractured vertebrae may displace bony fragments further into the canal and increase the encroachment. METHODS: Ten thoracolumbar functional spinal units harvested from mature minipigs and compressed to create burst fractures were imaged by computed tomography under 3 loading conditions: without compressive force and with 2 compressive forces analogous to the load expected in vivo. SCE were measured for all loading cases and compared with each other to identify whether they systematically changed between loading cases and to discriminate which specimens were affected by an increase in the loading. RESULTS: The application of a compressive loading did not systematically increase the SCE. However, specimens with a large bony fragment originating from the superior and posterior aspect of the vertebral body with a centrifugal orientation had a significant increase of SCE when loaded. CONCLUSIONS: An increase in spinal internal loads resulting from a change in the patient posture may increase the SCE of burst fracture. Measurement of the SCE should take into account the bony fragment distribution of burst fracture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".