MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100619503 · doi:10.2174/1874120701307010009

Feasibility of a Braided Composite for Orthopedic Bone Cast

2013· article· en· W2100619503 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine R. Evans, Jason P. Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Biomedical Engineering Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceDiaphysisOsteotomyStiffnessComposite numberKevlarCastingBone fractureStress (linguistics)Composite materialOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringOrthopedic surgeryMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A tubular braided composite bone cast for improving the efficiency and quality of bone fracture treatment is investigated. Finite element analysis was used to evaluate stress concentrations in fracture sites supported with plate and tubular casts. The stress in a plated bone is 768 % of that in a whole bone at the same location, while it is only 47 % in a bone with a tubular cast. Three unbroken synthetic humeri were mechanically tested using an in-vitro long bone testing procedure developed in-house to find their stiffness at 20° and 60° abduction; these were found to be 116.8 ± 1.5 N/mm and 20.63 ± 0.02 N/mm, respectively. A 2 cm gap osteotomy was cut through the diaphysis in each bone. The bones were casted with a Kevlar/Cold cure composite, with calculated braid angles and thicknesses that Closely matched bone propoerties. The stiffness tests were repeated, and the results were within 10 % of the unbroken bone. This novel method of bone casting is promising if other clinical challenges can be minimized.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Biomedical Engineering JournalSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207