MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482624742 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159541

Finite-Element Analysis of Bone Stresses on Primary Impact in a Large-Animal Model: The Distal End of the Equine Third Metacarpal

2016· article· en· W2482624742 on OpenAlexaff
Cristin A. McCarty, Jeffrey J. Thomason, Karen Gordon, Timothy A. Burkhart, Jaques S. Milner, David W. Holdsworth

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetacarpal bonesFinite element methodOsteoarthritisJoint (building)Metacarpophalangeal jointAnatomyvon Mises yield criterionMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringMedicineStructural engineeringThumbPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the transient stresses of foot impact with the ground are similar to those found during midstance loading and if the location of high stress correlate with the sites most commonly associated with mechanically induced osteoarthritis (OA). We compared impact stresses in subchondral bone between two subject-specific, three-dimensional, finite-element models of the equine metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint-one with advanced OA and one healthy, and with similar published data on the stresses that occur at midstance. METHODS: Two right MCP joints (third metacarpal and proximal phalanx) were scanned using micro-computed tomography (μCT). Images were segmented, and meshed using modified 10-node quadratic tetrahedral elements. Bone material properties were assigned based on the bone density. An impact velocity of 3.55 m/s was applied to each model and contact pressures and stress distribution were calculated for each. In a separate iteration, the third metacarpal was loaded statically. A sampling grid of 160 equidistant points was superimposed over selected slices, and average peak stresses were calculated for 6 anatomical regions. Within-region maximal peak and average von Mises stresses were compared between healthy and OA bones in both midstance and impact loading. RESULTS: Average impact stresses across all regions, in both locations (palmar and dorsal) were greater in the OA model. Highest impact stresses were located in the dorsal medial condyle in the healthy (12.8 MPa) and OA (14.1MPa) models, and were lowest in the palmar medial and lateral parasagittal grooves in the healthy (5.94 MPa) and OA (7.07 MPa) models. The healthy static model had higher peak (up to 49.7% greater) and average (up to 38.6% greater) stresses in both locations and across all regions compared to the OA static model. CONCLUSIONS: Under simulated footfall a trot, loading on the dorsal aspect of the third metacarpal at impact created stresses similar to those found during midstance. The high accelerations that occur under impact loading are likely responsible for creating the high stresses, as opposed to midstance loading where the high stresses are the result of high mass loading. Although the stress magnitudes were found to be similar among the two loading conditions, the location of the high stress loading occurred in sites that are not typically associated with osteoarthritic changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207