Does Vibration Influence the Initiation of Intervertebral Disc Herniation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: In vitro biomechanics, randomized control trial. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were 2-fold: first, to determine the effect of exposure to axial vibration on the initiation and progression of disc herniation; second, to determine the effect of vibration exposure and the presence of disc damage on the mechanical properties of individual lamella from the annulus. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Vibration exposure has been linked to a higher reporting of low back pain and disc herniation via epidemiological studies. However, these studies are unable to determine causal relationships. In vitro tissue experimentation assists in determining if certain exposures, for example vibration, actually lead to herniation. METHODS: A total of 20 porcine (aged, 6-8 months; similar skeletal development as an adolescent human) functional spine units (FSU) were subjected to repetitive flexion-extension (6000 cycles), which has been shown to produce intervertebral disc herniation. While being exposed to the repeated flexion/extension, 10 FSUs were statically compressed under 1400 N (control group) and the other 10 were cyclically compressed (1260-1540 N) at a frequency of 5 Hz (vibration group). Post collection, intervertebral discs were dissected and individual lamella of the annulus was tested under uniaxial tension to failure (tension applied perpendicular to the orientation of the collagen fibers) to isolate the mechanical properties of the intralamellar matrix. RESULTS: Of the 10 control FSUs, 4 had evidence of herniation initiation while 8 of the 10 vibrated FSUs showed herniation initiation (P ∇ 0.01). No significant differences in disc height loss or FSU stiffness were observed between the control and vibrated groups. Further, no signficant differences were observed between the 2 groups for any of the single lamella mechanical properties. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that vibration is a causal mechanical risk factor that significantly increases the occurrence of herniation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".