Moment Measurements in Dynamic and Quasi-Static Spine Segment Testing Using Eccentric Compression are Susceptible to Artifacts Based on Loading Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tolerance of the spine to bending moments, used for evaluation of injury prevention devices, is often determined through eccentric axial compression experiments using segments of the cadaver spine. Preliminary experiments in our laboratory demonstrated that eccentric axial compression resulted in "unexpected" (artifact) moments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the static and dynamic effects of test configuration on bending moments during eccentric axial compression typical in cadaver spine segment testing. Specific objectives were to create dynamic equilibrium equations for the loads measured inferior to the specimen, experimentally verify these equations, and compare moment responses from various test configurations using synthetic (rubber) and human cadaver specimens. The equilibrium equations were verified by performing quasi-static (5 mm/s) and dynamic experiments (0.4 m/s) on a rubber specimen and comparing calculated shear forces and bending moments to those measured using a six-axis load cell. Moment responses were compared for hinge joint, linear slider and hinge joint, and roller joint configurations tested at quasi-static and dynamic rates. Calculated shear force and bending moment curves had similar shapes to those measured. Calculated values in the first local minima differed from those measured by 3% and 15%, respectively, in the dynamic test, and these occurred within 1.5 ms of those measured. In the rubber specimen experiments, for the hinge joint (translation constrained), quasi-static and dynamic posterior eccentric compression resulted in flexion (unexpected) moments. For the slider and hinge joints and the roller joints (translation unconstrained), extension ("expected") moments were measured quasi-statically and initial flexion (unexpected) moments were measured dynamically. In the cadaver experiments with roller joints, anterior and posterior eccentricities resulted in extension moments, which were unexpected and expected, for those configurations, respectively. The unexpected moments were due to the inertia of the superior mounting structures. This study has shown that eccentric axial compression produces unexpected moments due to translation constraints at all loading rates and due to the inertia of the superior mounting structures in dynamic experiments. It may be incorrect to assume that bending moments are equal to the product of compression force and eccentricity, particularly where the test configuration involves translational constraints and where the experiments are dynamic. In order to reduce inertial moment artifacts, the mass, and moment of inertia of any loading jig structures that rotate with the specimen should be minimized. Also, the distance between these structures and the load cell should be reduced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".