Quantitative morphology of the human and porcine mid-lumbar interspinous ligament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Animal models are essential in spine research for evaluating implants and for studying spinal mechanics. Several studies have compared the geometrical characteristics of animal and human vertebrae, but few studies have compared the structure of the spinal ligaments. The purpose of this study was to systematically quantify the collagen fibre orientation of the porcine and human interspinous ligament and thereby allow clearer interpretation of function. Human and porcine lumbar spine segments were loaded with a 10 Nm pure-flexion moment and chemically fixed. The sagittal plane collagen fibre orientation in the mid-lumbar interspinous ligaments was quantified by examining histological sections using a plane-polarized light macroscope and custom analysis software. The specimens showed collagen fibres in a posterior-cranial orientation originating from the superior aspect of the spinous process of the inferior vertebra and merging into the supraspinous ligament. There were not any statistically significant differences in interspinous ligament collagen fibre orientation between the human and porcine specimens. The middle and ventral spaces between the spinous processes of the human specimens contained loose disorganized collagen, skeletal muscle, and voids. The main load-bearing component of porcine and human interspinous ligament at the midlumbar level appears to be the dorsal portion, which is oriented at approximately 77-79 degrees with respect to the mid-disc plane. This dorsal aspect has a long moment arm and therefore is well suited to prevent excessive flexion. The similarity of the interspinous ligament morphology suggests that the porcine lumbar spine is a good model of the human lumbar 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".