Comparison of Nanoindentation Measurements Between Osteogenesis Imperfecta Type III and Type IV and Between Different Anatomic Locations (Femur/Tibia versus Iliac Crest)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanoindentation was used to compare the intrinsic mechanical properties of bone tissue (iliac crest biopsy) from children with type III and type IV osteogenesis imperfecta (OI). Young's modulus and hardness values were not significantly different between the two clinical severity groups on either cortical or trabecular measurement. In comparing the ratio of modulus over hardness (E/H) between OI type III and IV. The type III bone showed a marginally significant decrease for cortical bone and significant decrease for trabecular bone, which indicated that the OI type III bone was more brittle than OI type IV bone at the tissue level. In addition, nanoindentation measurements of the bone tissue harvested at femur/tibia from the same patients were compared with the results from the iliac crest biopsy. Young's modulus and hardness values were not significantly different between the two anatomic locations in either cortical or trabecular measurements. The ratio of E/H was not significantly different between the two groups. Results indicate that intrinsic modulus, hardness, and indentation deformation pattern (E/H) of OI bone tissues are not significantly different at long bone (midshaft of femur/tibia) and iliac crest. We observed that age (1.9 to 13.2 years) did not influence OI bone tissue intrinsic mechanical properties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".