MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049354417 · doi:10.1115/1.4007631

Predicting Distal Radius Bone Strains and Injury in Response to Impacts Using Multi-Axial Accelerometers

2012· article· en· W2049354417 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy A. Burkhart, Cynthia E. Dunning, David M. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsAccelerometerStrain gaugeAccelerationRADIUSCadaveric spasmStrain (injury)MechanicsMathematicsPhysicsStructural engineeringComputer scienceSurgeryMedicineAnatomyEngineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring a bone's response to impact has traditionally been done using strain gauges that are attached directly to the bone. Accelerometers have also been used for this purpose because they are reusable, inexpensive and can be attached easily. However, little data are available relating measured accelerations to bone injury, or to judge if accelerometers are reasonable surrogates for strain gauges in terms of their capacity to predict bone injuries. Impacts were applied with a custom designed pneumatic impact system to eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric radius specimens. Impacts were repeatedly applied with increasing energy until ultimate failure occurred. Three multiaxial strain gauge rosettes were glued to the bone (two distally and one proximally). Two multiaxial accelerometers were attached to the distal dorsal and proximal volar aspects of the radius. Overall, peak minimum and maximum principal strains were calculated from the strain-time curves from each gauge. Peak accelerations and acceleration rates were measured parallel (axial) and perpendicular (off-axis) to the long axis of the radius. Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to create strain and acceleration-based injury prediction models. To develop strain prediction models based on the acceleration variables, Linear generalized estimating equations were employed. The logistic models were assessed according to the quasi-likelihood under independence model criterion (QIC), while the linear models were assessed by the QIC and the marginal R(2). Peak axial and off-axis accelerations increased significantly (with increasing impact energy) across all impact trials. The best injury prediction model (QIC = 9.42) included distal resultant acceleration (p < 0.001) and donor body mass index (BMI) (p < 0.001). Compressive and tensile strains were best predicted by separate uni-variate models, including peak distal axial acceleration (R(2 )= 0.79) and peak off-axis acceleration (R(2 )= 0.79), respectively. Accelerometers appear to be a valid surrogate to strain gauges for measuring the general response of the bone to impact and predicting the probability of bone injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207