Braided tubular superelastic cables provide improved spinal stability compared to multifilament sublaminar cables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the use of braided tubular superelastic cables, previously used for sternum closure following sternotomy, as sublaminar fixation method. It compares the biomechanical performance of spinal instrumentation fixation systems with regular sublaminar cables and proprietary superelastic cables. A hybrid experimental protocol was applied to six porcine L1-L4 spinal segments to compare multifilament sublaminar cables (Atlas, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN) with proprietary superelastic cables. First, intact total range of motion was determined for all specimens using pure moment loading. Second, pure moments were imposed to the instrumented specimens until these intact total ranges of motion were reproduced. Compared to the intact specimens, the use of superelastic cables resulted in stiffer instrumented specimens than the use of multifilament cables for all the loading modes except axial torsion. Consequently, the superelastic cables limited the instrumented segments mobility more than the multifilament cables. Spinal instrumentation fixation systems using superelastic cables could be a good alternative to conventional sublaminar cables as it maintains a constant stabilization of the spine during loading.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".