MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Young Investigator Award Winner: Validation of the Mouse and Rat Disc as Mechanical Models of the Human Lumbar Disc

2004· article· en· W2073731770 on OpenAlex
Dawn M. Elliott, Joseph J. Sarver

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsMinnow Environmental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffnessTorsion (gastropod)AnatomyLumbarIntervertebral discMedicineBiomechanicsCompression (physics)Rat modelBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Measure the mechanical properties of the mouse and rat disc in compression and torsion. OBJECTIVES: Validate mouse and rat disc as a biomechanical model of the human disc by comparing the normalized properties in compression and torsion loading. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Rodents have been widely used as models to study disc degeneration; however, mechanical assessments of the rodent disc have been limited. Mouse and rat disc mechanical properties have not been determined. METHODS: Mechanically test mouse and rat motion segments from both the lumbar and the caudal levels in axial compression and torsion. Normalize the stiffness using disc geometry and compare with human motion segment stiffness taken from the literature. Compare lumbar and caudal levels with each other within each species, and test for correlation between mechanics and body weight. RESULTS: The average compression stiffness, normalized by geometry, was 2-4 MPa and compared well with human motion segment stiffness in compression (3-9 MPa). The average torsion stiffness, normalized by disc geometry, was 5-11 MPa and compared well with human motion segment stiffness in torsion (2-9 MPa). Differences between the lumbar and caudal levels were observed. For the caudal tail, no correlation between body weight and any compression property was observed, but for the lumbar spine, some correlations were observed. CONCLUSIONS.: This study provides validation for the mouse and rat disc as a mechanical model of the human disc. Correlations between lumbar spine properties and animal body weight provide support for the use of quadruped animal lumbar spines as mechanical models of the bipedal human spine. The differences between lumbar and tail mechanics need further exploration. These findings are important in light of the extensive use of the rodent in disc studies and the expected future utility of genetically engineered mice.

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.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · 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