Influence of Experimental Protocols on the Mechanical Properties of the Intervertebral Disc in Unconfined Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of standardization in experimental protocols for unconfined compression tests of intervertebral discs (IVD) tissues is a major issue in the quantification of their mechanical properties. Our hypothesis is that the experimental protocols influence the mechanical properties of both annulus fibrosus and nucleus pulposus. IVD extracted from bovine tails were tested in unconfined compression stress-relaxation experiments according to six different protocols, where for each protocol, the initial swelling of the samples and the applied preload were different. The Young's modulus was calculated from a viscoelastic model, and the permeability from a linear biphasic poroviscoelastic model. Important differences were observed in the prediction of the mechanical properties of the IVD according to the initial experimental conditions, in agreement with our hypothesis. The protocol including an initial swelling, a 5% strain preload, and a 5% strain ramp is the most relevant protocol to test the annulus fibrosus in unconfined compression, and provides a permeability of 5.0 ± 4.2e(-14)m(4)/N[middle dot]s and a Young's modulus of 7.6 ± 4.7 kPa. The protocol with semi confined swelling and a 5% strain ramp is the most relevant protocol for the nucleus pulposus and provides a permeability of 10.7 ± 3.1 e(-14)m(4)/N[middle dot]s and a Young's modulus of 6.0 ± 2.5 kPa.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".