The Biomechanical Effects of Kyphoplasty on Treated and Adjacent Nontreated Vertebral Bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains unclear whether adjacent vertebral body fractures are related to the natural progression of osteoporosis or if adjacent fractures are a consequence of augmentation with bone cement. Experimental or computational studies have not completely addressed the biomechanical effects of kyphoplasty on adjacent levels immediately following augmentation. This study presents a validated two-functional spinal unit (FSU) T12-L2 finite element model with a simulated kyphoplasty augmentation in L1 to predict stresses and strains within the bone cement and bone of the treated and adjacent nontreated vertebral bodies. The findings from this multiple-FSU study and a recent retrospective clinical study suggest that changes in stresses and strains in levels adjacent to a kyphoplasty-treated level are minimal. Furthermore, the stress and strain levels found in the treated levels are less than injury tolerance limits of cancellous and cortical bone. Therefore, subsequent adjacent level fractures may be related to the underlying etiology (weakening of the bone) rather than the surgical intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".