Evaluation of Synthetic Composite Tibias for Fracture Testing Using Impact Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite synthetic bones are a commercially available substitute for cadaveric specimens, and they have previously been validated to replicate natural bone under quasistatic, non-destructive testing. Synthetic tibias could be used to analyse injury risk to the lower leg during impact events, but their failure mode must be validated by way of comparative tests to human bone. Synthetic tibias were instrumented with strain gauges and subjected to axial impact loading. Two different projectile masses were used for the tests, and the effects of force, momentum, and energy on failure were compared with previous cadaveric data. The composite tibias failed at forces between 37-45 per cent of those from cadavers, and failed via cortical delamination in combination with fracture. A Weibull analysis generated a survivability curve based on axial force at failure, and was shown to be lower than previous cadaveric curves. Failure was dependent on both the momentum and energy applied. Strain distributions through the synthetic tibias were significantly different from those of cadavers. The convex distal articular surface of the synthetic bones may partially account for the lower fracture tolerance. As a result of the many differences in response, these synthetic tibias are not recommended for use in impact fracture studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".