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 OpenAlexaff
Dawn M. Elliott, Joseph J. Sarver

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.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.008

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

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 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

Citations170
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207