MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070990010 · doi:10.1115/1.4007249

A Preliminary Biomechanical Study of Cyclic Preconditioning Effects on Canine Cadaveric Whole Femurs

2012· article· en· W2070990010 on OpenAlexaff
Rad Zdero, Chris H. Gallimore, Alison J McConnell, Harshita Patel, Rosane Nisenbaum, Golam Morshed, Henry Koo, Michael D. McKee, Emil H. Schemitsch, Habiba Bougherara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMedtronic (Canada)Toronto Metropolitan UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmStiffnessBendingLinearityBending stiffnessBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceNuclear medicineAnatomyMedicineComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomechanical preconditioning of biological specimens by cyclic loading is routinely done presumably to stabilize properties prior to the main phase of a study. However, no prior studies have actually measured these effects for whole bone of any kind. The aim of this study, therefore, was to quantify these effects for whole bones. Fourteen matched pairs of fresh-frozen intact cadaveric canine femurs were sinusoidally loaded in 4-point bending from 50 N to 300 N at 1 Hz for 25 cycles. All femurs were tested in both anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) bending planes. Bending stiffness (i.e., slope of the force-vs-displacement curve) and linearity R(2) (i.e., coefficient of determination) of each loading cycle were measured and compared statistically to determine the effect of limb side, cycle number, and bending plane. Stiffnesses rose from 809.7 to 867.7 N/mm (AP, left), 847.3 to 915.6 N/mm (AP, right), 829.2 to 892.5 N/mm (AP, combined), 538.7 to 580.4 N/mm (ML, left), 568.9 to 613.8 N/mm (ML, right), and 553.8 to 597.1 N/mm (ML, combined). Linearity R(2) rose from 0.96 to 0.99 (AP, left), 0.97 to 0.99 (AP, right), 0.96 to 0.99 (AP, combined), 0.95 to 0.98 (ML, left), 0.94 to 0.98 (ML, right), and 0.95 to 0.98 (ML, combined). Stiffness and linearity R(2) versus cycle number were well-described by exponential curves whose values leveled off, respectively, starting at 12 and 5 cycles. For stiffness, there were no statistical differences for left versus right femurs (p = 0.166), but there were effects due to cycle number (p < 0.0001) and AP versus ML bending plane (p < 0.0001). Similarly, for linearity, no statistical differences were noted due to limb side (p = 0.533), but there were effects due to cycle number (p < 0.0001) and AP versus ML bending plane (p = 0.006). A minimum of 12 preconditioning cycles was needed to fully stabilize both the stiffness and linearity of the canine femurs. This is the first study to measure the effects of mechanical preconditioning on whole bones, having some practical implications on research practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207