Comparative Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures Using ??-BSM???, a Calcium Phosphate Cement, Versus Cancellous Bone Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the compressive strength of a bone substitute material (alpha-BSM) to cancellous bone when used to fill a defect void in a cadaver model of a Schatzker II split depression fracture of the lateral tibial plateau. DESIGN: Randomized, paired design. SETTING: Biomedical engineering laboratory. PATIENTS: Twenty-six human tibias were harvested from 13 cadavers. Three pairs of tibia fractured during preparation and were excluded. The remaining 10 matched pairs were randomized to fixation by using the bone substitute material or cancellous bone. INTERVENTION: A split depression fracture of the lateral tibial plateau was created in each tibia by using reproducible methods. This fracture was stabilized with a stainless steel L-plate and screws and either alpha-BSM or cancellous bone to fill the defect void. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Stiffness of the elevated fragment in compression, total depression of the joint at 1000 N. RESULTS: The alpha-BSM bone substitute displayed significantly greater stiffness than cancellous bone constructs in Schatzker II split depression fractures of the lateral tibial plateau (P < 0.0001). Plateau defects displaced significantly less at 1000 N when using alpha-BSM in comparison to cancellous bone (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cadaveric study, alpha-BSM is an effective bone substitute compared with cancellous bone graft for stabilizing split depression fractures of the lateral tibial plateau.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".