MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104414594 · doi:10.1177/0954411911401487

Computation of bone remodelling after Duracon knee arthroplasty using a thermodynamic-based model

2011· article· en· W2104414594 on OpenAlexaff
Habiba Bougherara, S Nazgooei, Alireza Sayyidmousavi, František Maršík, Ivo Mařík

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBone remodelingCondyleBone resorptionBiomechanicsResorptionBiomedical engineeringBone mineralStrain energy density functionFemurMaterials scienceFinite element methodAnatomyPhysicsOsteoporosisThermodynamicsMedicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study utilizes a recently developed literature model for the bone remodelling process to predict the evolution of bone density following Duracon total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this model, which is based on chemical kinetics and irreversible thermodynamics, bone is treated as a self-organizing system capable of exchanging matter, energy, and entropy with its surroundings. Unlike previous models in which mechanical loading is regarded as the only stimulus for bone remodelling, the present model establishes a unique coupling between mechanical loading and the chemical reactions involved in the process of bone remodelling. This model was incorporated into the finite element software ANSYS by means of a macro to compute density distribution in distal femoral bone both before and after TKA. Consistent with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans reported in the literature, the results showed that the most severe bone loss occurs in the anterior region of the distal femur and that there is more bone resorption in the lateral than the medial condyle following TKA. Furthermore, the bone density distribution predicted using the present model showed a gradual and uniform pattern and thus a more realistic bone evolution contrary to the strain energy density model, where there is no gradual bone density evolution.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in MedicineSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207