MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142523636 · doi:10.3844/ajassp.2009.449.455

Using a Truss-Inspired Model with the Uniform Strength Optimization Theory to Predict Spongy Bone Geometry in Proximal Femur

2009· article· en· W2142523636 on OpenAlexafffund
Pishdast

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Applied Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSharif University of TechnologyUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsTrussFemurStructural engineeringMathematicsGeometryStrain (injury)AnatomyMathematical analysisEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new nave approach for simulating bone remodeling process. It is based on the uniform strength theory of optimization and employs a truss-like model for bone. The truss was subjected to external loads including 5 point loads simulating the hip joint contact forces and 3 muscular forces at the attachment sites of the muscles to the bone and the rest are reactions of ligaments. The strain in the links was calculated and the links with high strains were identified. The initial truss is modified by introducing new links wherever the strain exceeds a prescribed or critical value. The critical value was assumed to be equal to an average of the absolute value of strains in the initial model. Each link which undergoes a high strain is replaced by several new links by adding new nodes around it using Delaunay method. Introducing the new links to the truss, which is conducted according to a weighted arithmetic mean formula, will strengthen the structure and reduce the strain within the respective zone. This procedure was repeated for several times. Convergence was achieved when there were no critical links remaining. This method was used to study the 2D shape of proximal femur in the frontal plane and provided results which are in a fairly good agreement with CT image of the human proximal femur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Applied SciencesSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207