Documentation and three‐dimensional modelling of human soleus muscle architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to visualize and document the architecture of the human soleus muscle throughout its entire volume. The architecture was visualized by creating a three-dimensional (3D) manipulatable computer model of an entire cadaveric soleus, in situ, using B-spline solid to display muscle fiber bundles that had been serially dissected, pinned, and digitized. A database of fiber bundle length and angle of pennation throughout the marginal, posterior, and anterior soleus was compiled. The computer model allowed documentation of the architectural parameters in 3D space, with the angle of pennation being measured relative to the tangent plane of the point of attachment of a fiber bundle. Before this study, the only architectural parameters that have been recorded have been 2D. Three-dimensional reconstruction is an exciting innovation because it makes feasible the creation of an architectural database and allows visualization of each fiber bundle in situ from any perspective. It was concluded that the architecture is non-uniform throughout the volume of soleus. Detailed architectural studies may lead to the development of muscle models that can more accurately predict interaction between muscle parts, force generation, and the effect of pathologic states on muscle function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".