Modeling and remodeling responses to normal loading in the human lower limb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limb bones are designed to be strong enough to support the body and yet be energetically conservative during locomotion. Bones of the distal segment, which are relatively costly to move, are often more slender than bones of the proximal segments, even though they must sustain proportionally greater loads. As a result, they are expected to experience a higher incidence of microdamage. With this constraint in mind, Lieberman and Crompton (1998 Principles of Animal Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 78-86) proposed that bones response to strain varies along the proximo-distal axis of the limb. In order to avoid fatigue fractures due to the accumulation of microdamage, the distal segment, in comparison to the proximal segment, will have an increase in remodeling events to replace damaged bone. In this paper, we test the hypothesis of Lieberman and Crompton (1998) with respect to the human lower limb. With a sample of adult individuals, we compare tibiae and femora for mid-diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry and Haversian remodeling differences. Our results indicate that the human limb is not designed like that of quadrupedal cursorial animals. The tibia is not less resistant in bending and torsion, and does not remodel more than the femur. Our findings fail to support the hypothesis of Lieberman and Crompton (1998) and suggest, instead, that the human lower limb is not designed like a cursorial animal limb. In addition, our results support previous observations that remodeling is not uniform within the cross section of a bone, probably a reflection of different loading histories within the different regions of the cross section.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".