Cancellous bone screw purchase: A comparison of synthetic femurs, human femurs, and finite element analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical assessments of orthopaedic fracture fixation constructs are increasingly using commercially available analogues such as the fourth-generation composite femur (4GCF). The aim of this study was to compare cancellous screw purchase directly between these surrogates and human femurs, which has not been done previously. Synthetic and human femurs each had one orthopaedic cancellous screw (major diameter, 6.5 mm) inserted along the femoral neck axis and into the spongy bone of the femoral head to a depth of 30 mm. Screws were removed to obtain pull-out force, shear stress, and energy values. The three experimental study groups (n = 6 femurs each) were the 4GCF with a 'solid' cancellous matrix, the 4GCF with a 'cellular' cancellous matrix, and human femurs. Moreover, a finite element model was developed on the basis of the material properties and anatomical geometry of the two synthetic femurs in order to assess cancellous screw purchase. The results for force, shear stress, and energy respectively were as follows: 4GCF solid femurs, 926.47 +/- 66.76 N, 2.84 +/- 0.20 MPa, and 0.57 +/- 0.04 J; 4GCF cellular femurs, 1409.64 +/- 133.36 N, 4.31 +/- 0.41 MPa, and 0.99 +/- 0.13 J; human femurs, 1523.29 +/- 1380.15N, 4.66 +/- 4.22 MPa, and 2.78 +/- 3.61J. No statistical differences were noted when comparing the three experimental groups for pull-out force (p = 0.413), shear stress (p = 0.412), or energy (p = 0.185). The 4GCF with either a 'solid' or 'cellular' cancellous matrix is a good biomechanical analogue to the human femur at the screw thread-bone interface. This is the first study to perform a three-way investigation of cancellous screw purchase using 4GCFs, human femurs, and finite element analysis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".