Method to Geometrically Personalize a Detailed Finite-Element Model of the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, developing geometrically personalized and detailed solid finite-element models (FEMs) of the spine remains a challenge, notably due to multiple articulations and complex geometries. To answer this problem, a methodology based on a free-form deformation technique (kriging) was developed to deform a detailed reference finite-element mesh of the spine (including discs and ligaments) to the patient-specific geometry of 10- and 82-year-old asymptomatic spines. Different kriging configurations were tested: with or without smoothing, and control points on or surrounding the entire mesh. Based on the results, it is recommended to use surrounding control points and smoothing. The mean node to surface distance between the deformed and target geometries was 0.3±1.1 mm. Most elements met the mesh quality criteria (95%) after deformation, without interference at the articular facets. The method's novelty lies in the deformation of the entire spine at once, as opposed to deforming each vertebra separately, with surrounding control points and smoothing. This enables the transformation of reference vertebrae and soft tissues to obtain complete and personalized FEMs of the spine with minimal postprocessing to optimize the mesh.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".