Comparison of Tensile Strength of Slip Knots With That of 3-1-1 Knots Using 10-0 Nylon Sutures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the tensile strength of slip knots with that of 3-1-1 knots using 10-0 nylon sutures. METHODS: In vitro, destructive materials testing was used. By adhering to the American Standard for Testing and Materials standards for testing of suture materials, slip knots were compared with 3-1-1 knots using 10-0 nylon suture material. Tensile testing was performed on each knot type using the Instron Microtester (Model 5848 Norwood, MA). Scanning electron microscopy was used to analyze all sutures tested to failure. The main outcome measure was the maximum load (newtons) or ultimate tensile strength before which each knot failed by breakage or by unraveling. RESULTS: The mean force resulting in failure by breakage of the 3-1-1 knot and slip knot was 0.71 and 0.64 N, respectively (P = 0.048). The mean force resulting in failure by the unraveling of the 3-1-1 knot and slip knot was 0.48 and 0.37 N, respectively (P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In 10-0 nylon sutures, the 3-1-1 knot has a statistically significant greater tensile strength than the slip knot has in conditions wherein they fail by either breakage or unraveling.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".