MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092577279 · doi:10.1002/jor.22009

Failure characteristics of the isolated distal radius in response to dynamic impact loading

2011· article· en· W2092577279 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy A. Burkhart, David M. Andrews, Cynthia E. Dunning

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCadaveric spasmRADIUSWristLunateFracture (geology)Distal radius fractureMaterials scienceLunate boneScaphoid fractureImpact energyOrthodonticsComposite materialGeologyMedicineSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the mechanical response of the distal radius pre-fracture and at fracture under dynamic impact loads. The distal third of eight human cadaveric radii were potted and placed in a custom designed pneumatic impact system. The distal intra-articular surface of the radius rested against a model scaphoid and lunate, simulating 45° of wrist extension. The scaphoid and lunate were attached to a load cell that in turn was attached to an impact plate. Impulsive impacts were applied at increasing energy levels, in 10 J increments, until fracture occurred. Three 45° stacked strain gauge rosettes were affixed along the length of the radius quantifying the bone strains. The mean (SD) fracture energy was 45.5 (16) J. The mean (SD) resultant impact reaction force (IRFr) at failure was 2,142 (1,229) N, resulting in high compressive strains at the distal (2,718 (1,698) µε) and proximal radius (3,664 (1,890) µε). We successfully reproduced consistent fracture patterns in response to dynamic loads. The fracture energy and forces reported here are lower and the strains are higher than those previously reported and can likely be attributed to the controlled, incremental, dynamic nature of the applied loads.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207