Relating age and micro-architecture with apparent-level elastic constants: a micro-finite element study of female cortical bone from the anterior femoral midshaft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homogenized elastic properties are often assumed for macro-finite element (FE) models used in orthopaedic biomechanics. The accuracy of material property assignments may have a strong effect on the ability of these models to make accurate predictions. For cortical bone, most macro-scale FE models assume isotropic elastic material behaviour and do not include variation of material properties due to bone micro-architecture. The first aim of the present study was to evaluate the variation of apparent-level (homogenized) orthotropic elastic constants of cortical bone with age and indices of bone micro-architecture. Considerable age-dependent differences in porosity were noted across the cortical thickness in previous research. The second aim of the study was to quantify the resulting differences in elastic constants between the periosteum and endosteum. Specimens were taken from the anterior femoral midshaft of 27 female donors (age 53.4 +/- 23.6 years) and micro-FE (gFE) analysis was used to derive orthotropic elastic constants. The variation of orthotropic elastic constants (Young's moduli, shear moduli, and Poisson's ratios) with various cortical bone micro-architectural indices was investigated. The ratio of canal volume to tissue volume, Ca.V/TV, analogous to porosity, was found to be the strongest predictor (r2(ave) = 0.958) of the elastic constants. Age was less predictive (r2(ave) = 0.385) than Ca.V/TV. Elastic anisotropy increased with increasing Ca.V/TV, leading to lower elastic moduli in the transverse, typically less frequently loaded, directions. Increased Ca.V/TV led to a more substantial reduction in elastic constants at the endosteal aspect than at the periosteal aspect. The results are expected to be most applicable in similar midshaft locations of long bones; specific analysis of other sites would be necessary to evaluate elastic properties elsewhere. It was concluded that Ca.V/TV was the most predictive of cortical bone elastic constants and that considerable periosteal-endosteal variations in these constants can develop with bone loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".