Comparison of the stability of various internal fixators used in the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans—a mechanical model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine what characteristics of fixation devices used in the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) contribute to improved stability to resist shear loading. An OCD model was designed using rigid polyurethane foam. Each specimen consisted of two components, an osteochondral fragment and a corresponding defect. A total of 40 specimens were prepared and assigned to one of four groups: control (no extrinsic stabilizer); two 2-mm-diameter Kirschner wires (K-wires), 40 mm in length; one threaded washer and a 28-mm screw; and one threaded washer and a 38 mm screw. Each specimen was mounted onto an Iosipescu shear test fixture and subjected to shear loads at a pseudo-static displacement rate of 0.075 mm/s. All groups demonstrated some stability; controls were significantly less stable than all other groups. The group with the threaded washer and 38-mm screw demonstrated the greatest stability (p < 0.001), and no difference was noted between the K-wire and 28-mm screw groups. These results suggest that, in this OCD model, friction conferred some intrinsic stability to resist loads in shear. However, stability was improved with the use of long implants that compressed the fragments together.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".