Congruency Effects on Load Bearing in Diarthrodial Joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling load bearing in diarthrodial joints is challenging, due to the complexity of the materials, the boundary and interface conditions and the geometry. The articulating surfaces are covered with cartilage layers that are filled with a fluid that plays a major role in load bearing [Mow, V.C., Holmes, M.H., Lai, W.M. (1984) "Survey article: fluid transport and mechanical properties of articular cartilage: a review", Journal of Biomechanics 17(5), 377-394]. Researchers have tended to approximate joint geometry using axisymmetry [Donzelli, P.S., Spilker, R.L., Ateshian, G.A., Mow, V.C. (1999) "Contact analysis of biphasic transversely isotropic cartilage layers and correlations with tissue failure", Journal of Biomechanics 32, 1037-1047], often with a rounded upper articulating surface, creating a form of Hertz problem [Donzelli, P.S., Spilker, R.L., Ateshian, G.A., Mow, V.C. (1999) "Contact analysis of biphasic transversely isotropic cartilage layers and correlations with tissue failure", Journal of Biomechanics 32, 1037-1047]. However, diarthrodial joints (shoulder, hip and knee) are equipped with peripheral structures (glenoid labrum, acetabular labrum and meniscus, respectively) that tend to deepen the joint contact and thus cause initial contact to be established at the periphery of the joint rather than "centrally". The surface geometries are purposefully incongruent, and the incongruency has a significant effect on the stresses, pressures and pressure gradients inside the tissue. The models show the importance of the peripheral structures and the incongruency from a load-bearing perspective. Joint shapes must provide a compromise between demands for load-bearing, lubrication and the supply of nutrients to the chondrocytes of the cartilage and cells of the peripheral structures. Retention and repair of the functionality of these peripheral structures should be a prime consideration in any surgical treatment of an injured joint.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".