MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470934669 · doi:10.1177/0954411916655373

Strain rate dependent behavior of the porcine spinal cord under transverse dynamic compression

2016· article· en· W2470934669 on OpenAlexaff
Léo Fradet, F Cliche, Yvan Petit, Jean‐Marc Mac‐Thiong, Pierre‐Jean Arnoux

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsStrain (injury)Transverse planeStrain rateCompression (physics)Materials scienceStructural engineeringComposite materialAnatomyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate description of the mechanical properties of spinal cord tissue benefits to clinical evaluation of spinal cord injuries and is a required input for analysis tools such as finite element models. Unfortunately, available data in the literature generally relate mechanical properties of the spinal cord under quasi-static loading conditions, which is not adapted to the study of traumatic behavior, as neurological tissue adopts a viscoelastic behavior. Thus, the objective of this study is to describe mechanical properties of the spinal cord up to mechanical damage, under dynamic loading conditions. A total of 192 porcine cervical to lumbar spinal cord samples were compressed in a transverse direction. Loading conditions included ramp tests at 0.5, 5 or 50 s −1 and cyclic loading at 1, 10 or 20 Hz. Results showed that spinal cord behavior was significantly influenced by strain rate. Mechanical damage occurred at 0.64, 0.68 and 0.73 strains for 0.5, 5 or 50 s −1 loadings, respectively. Variations of behavior between the tested strain rates were explained by cyclic loading results, which revealed behavior more or less viscous depending on strain rate. Also, a parameter (stress multiplication factor) was introduced to allow transcription of a stress–strain behavior curve to different strain rates. This factor was described and was significantly different for cervical, thoracic and lumbar vertebral heights, and for the strain rates evaluated in this study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in MedicineSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207