MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078081843 · doi:10.1115/imece2002-32506

Apparatus to Determine the Macroscopic and Microscopic Biaxial Swelling Response of the Annulus Fibrosus

2002· article· en· W2078081843 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Hulme, Sabina B. Bruehlmann, Neil A. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Bioengineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnulus (botany)Intervertebral discSwellingMaterials scienceHydrostatic equilibriumBiomedical engineeringIntervertebral diskComposite materialAnatomyLumbarPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intervertebral disc (IVD) is a “hydrostatic load-bearing structure” [1], found between the vertebral bodies of the spine. The IVD is composed of the inner and outer annulus fibrosus and a gelatinous center, the nucleus pulposus. Fluid is the largest component of the IVD. Swelling affects the macroscopic mechanical response of the tissue, as well as the microscopic nutrient and solute transport to the cells of the IVD. Previous studies describing the macroscopic swelling behaviour of the annulus fibrosus have been uniaxial in nature [2,3]. However, the behaviour of the annulus is markedly affected by its geometry [3]. By examining a biaxial section of annulus fibrosus with a portion of the bone attachment present, the structure of the annular test section will be maintained and by inference so should its function [4]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop an apparatus to investigate simultaneously both the macroscopic and microscopic swelling behaviour of the annulus fibrosus subjected to realistic biaxial loading. The biaxial loading device should maintain the annulus fibrosus in vivo geometry and environment, monitor stress and control tissue strain, while positioning the tissue in a manner that allows for in situ visualization of the cells.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in BioengineeringSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207