MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152405796 · doi:10.1080/1025584031000072237

Biomechanical Modeling of Posterior Instrumentation of the Scoliotic Spine

2003· article· en· W2152405796 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVertebraScoliosisKinematicsInstrumentation (computer programming)Thoracic vertebraeBiomechanicsSpinal fusionOrthodonticsKyphosisCoronal planeLumbar vertebraeLumbarMedicineComputer scienceAnatomySurgeryPhysicsRadiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scoliosis is a three-dimensional deformation of the spine that can be treated by vertebral fusion using surgical instrumentation. However, the optimal configuration of instrumentation remains controversial. Simulating the surgical maneuvers with personalized biomechanical models may provide an analytical tool to determine instrumentation configuration during the pre-operative planning. Finite element models used in surgical simulations display convergence difficulties as a result of discontinuities and stiffness differences between elements. A kinetic model using flexible mechanisms has been developed to address this problem, and this study presents its use in the simulation of Cotrel-Dubousset Horizon surgical maneuvers. The model of the spine is composed of rigid bodies corresponding to the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and flexible elements representing the intervertebral structures. The model was personalized to the geometry of three scoliotic patients (with a thoracic Cobb angle of 45 degrees, 49 degrees and 39 degrees ). Binary joints and kinematic constraints were used to represent the rod-implant-vertebra joints. The correction procedure was simulated using three steps: (1) Translation of hooks and screws on the first rod; (2) 90 degrees rod rotation; (3) Hooks and screws look-up on the rod. After the simulation, slight differences of 0-6 degrees were found for the thoracic spine scoliosis and the kyphosis, and of 1-8 degrees for the axial rotation of the apical vertebra and for the orientation of the plane of maximum deformity, compared to the real post-operative shape of the patient. Reaction loads at the vertebra-implant link were mostly below 1000 N, while reaction loads at the boundary conditions (representing the overall action of the surgeon) were in the range 7-470 N and maximum torque applied to the rod was 1.8 Nm. This kinetic modeling approach using flexible mechanisms provided a realistic representation of the surgical maneuvers. It may offer a tool to predict spinal geometry correction and assist in the pre-operative planning of surgical instrumentation of the scoliotic spine.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.342
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