MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132222182 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2011.617006

Development of an image-based technique to examine joint congruency at the elbow

2012· article· en· W2132222182 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Lalone, Colin McDonald, Louis M. Ferreira, Terry M. Peters, Graham W. King, James A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElbowJoint (building)Cadaveric spasmComputer scienceOsteoarthritisOrthodonticsBiomechanicsContact mechanicsContact areaMaterials scienceEngineeringAnatomyMedicineStructural engineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying joint contact in articular joints is important for both the biomechanical investigation of joint mechanics and the study of osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to develop a proximity mapping technique to non-invasively determine joint congruency, as a surrogate of joint contact. To illustrate the capabilities of this algorithm, a cadaveric upper extremity was positioned at varying degrees of elbow flexion. This technique was validated using a gold standard experimental casting technique. The pattern of the cast showed an excellent agreement with the generated proximity map using the inter-bone distance algorithm. The results from this study agree with the results of previous studies examining joint contact at the elbow both in the location and in the tracking of the joint contact throughout elbow flexion. Ultimately, this technique will lead to an increased understanding of the effect of malalignment and instability of the joint on contact mechanics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207