Factors affecting intradiscal pressure measurement during in vitro biomechanical tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of intradiscal pressure measurement during in vitro biomechanical testing. In particular, the variability of measurements will be assessed for repeated measures by considering the effect of specimens and of freezing/thawing cycles. METHODS: Thirty-six functional units from 8 porcine spines (S1: T7-T8, S2: T9-T10, S3: T12-T11, S4: T14-T13, S5: L1-L2 and S6: L3-L4) have been used. The intervertebral discs were measured to obtain the frontal and sagittal dimensions. These measurements helped locate the center of the disc where a modified catheter was positioned. A fiber optic pressure sensor (measuring range: -0.1 to 17 bar) (360HP, SAMBA Sensors, Sweden) was then inserted into the catheter. The specimens were divided into 3 groups: 1) fresh (F), 2) after one freeze/thaw cycle (C1) and 3) after 2 freeze/thaw cycles (C2). These groups were divided in two, depending on whether specimens were subjected to 400 N axial loading or not. Ten measurements (insertion of the sensor for a period of one minute, then removal) were taken for each case. Statistical analyses evaluated the influence of porcine specimen and the vertebral level using a MANOVA. The effect of repeated measurements was evaluated with ANOVA. The difference between freeze/thaw cycles were analysed with U Mann-Whitney test (P≤0.05). RESULTS: Without axial loading, the F group showed 365 mbar intradiscal pressure, 473 mbar for the C1 group, and 391 mbar for the C2 group. With 400N axial load, the F group showed intradiscal pressure of 10610 mbar, the C1 group 10132 mbar, the C2 group 12074 mbar. The statistical analysis shows a significant influence of the porcine specimen (p<0.001), with or without axial loading and of the vertebral level with (p=0.048) and without load (p<0.001). The results were also significantly different between the freeze/thaw cycles, with (p<0.001) and without load (p=0.033). Repeated measurement (without load p = 0.82 and with p = 0.56) did not show significant influence. CONCLUSIONS: The results tend to support that freezing/thawing cycles can affect intradiscal pressure measurement with significant inter-specimen variability. The use of the same specimen as its own control during in vitro biomechanical testing could be recommended.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".