MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062406832 · doi:10.1002/ca.20659

Three‐dimensional study of the musculotendinous architecture of lumbar multifidus and its functional implications

2008· article· en· W2062406832 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro L. Rosatelli, Kajeandra Ravichandiran, Anne Agur

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmMedicineLumbarAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lumbar multifidus (LMT) is a key muscle, which provides stability to the lumbar spine, and has been shown to have altered neuromuscular recruitment following acute episodes of low back pain. Architectural parameters are important determinants of function, but have not been well documented for LMT. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to model and quantify the architecture of LMT throughout its volume. Nine male and one female formalin‐embalmed cadaveric specimens (average age 80 ± 11 years) without any evidence of spinal deformity/pathology were used. The musculotendinous components of LMT were serially dissected and digitized. Next, the data were imported into MAYA™ to create a three‐dimensional model of each segment of LMT from which architectural parameters including fiber bundle length (FBL), fiber bundle angle (FBA), and tendon length were quantified. Water displacement was used to determine volume. The data were analyzed using paired t ‐tests and ANOVA followed by Tukey's post‐hoc test ( P ≤ 0.05). LMT (L1–L4) has three architecturally distinct regions: superficial, intermediate, and deep. Intermediate LMT was absent in all specimens at L5. Mean FBL decreased significantly ( P ≤ 0.05) from superficial (5.8 ± 1.6 cm) to deep (2.9 ± 1.1 cm) as did volume (superficial, 5.6 ± 2.3 ml; deep, 0.7 ± 0.3 ml) measured at each region. By contrast, mean FBA increased from superficial to deep. The current study lends further evidence to support the role of different regions within LMT to serve distinct functions particularly to produce movement and/or control stability. Clin. Anat. 21:539–546, 2008. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations107
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical AnatomySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207