Comparison of Strain Rosettes and Digital Image Correlation for Measuring Vertebral Body Strain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strain gages are commonly used to measure bone strain, but only provide strain at a single location. Digital image correlation (DIC) is an optical technique that provides the displacement, and therefore strain, over an entire region of interest on the bone surface. This study compares vertebral body strains measured using strain gages and DIC. The anterior surfaces of 15 cadaveric porcine vertebrae were prepared with a strain rosette and a speckled paint pattern for DIC. The vertebrae were loaded in compression with a materials testing machine, and two high-resolution cameras were used to image the anterior surface of the bones. The mean noise levels for the strain rosette and DIC were 1 με and 24 με, respectively. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare strain from the DIC and rosette (excluding 44% of trials with some evidence of strain rosette failure or debonding); the mean difference ± 2 standard deviations (SDs) was -108 με ± 702 με for the minimum (compressive) principal strain and -53 με ± 332 με for the maximum (tensile) principal strain. Although the DIC has higher noise, it avoids the relatively high risk we observed of strain gage debonding. These results can be used to develop guidelines for selecting a method to measure strain on bone.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it