Development of an equation for calculating vertebral shear failure tolerance without destructive mechanical testing using iterative linear regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Equations used to determine vertebral failure tolerances without the need for destructive testing are useful for scaling applied sub-maximal forces during in vitro repetitive loading studies. However, existing equations that use vertebral bone density and morphology for calculating compressive failure tolerance are unsuitable for calculating vertebral shear failure tolerance since the primary site of failure is the pars interarticularis and not the vertebral body. Therefore, this investigation developed new equations for non-destructively determining vertebral shear failure tolerance from morphological and/or bone density measures. Shear failure was induced in 40 porcine cervical vertebral joints (20 C3-C4 and 20 C5-C6) by applying a constant posterior displacement to the caudal vertebra at 0.15 mm/s. Prior to destructive testing, morphology and bone density of the posterior elements were made with digital calipers, X-rays, and peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Iterative linear regression identified mathematical relationships between shear failure tolerance, and morphological and bone density measurements. Along with vertebral level, pars interarticularis length and lamina height from the cranial vertebra, and inferior facet height from the caudal vertebra collectively explained 61.8% of shear failure tolerance variance. Accuracy for this relationship, estimated using the same group of specimens, was 211.9 N or 9.8% of the measured shear failure tolerance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".