MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2532803138

EFFECT OF MUSCLE FORCES AND ACL RESECTION ON IN VITRO KNEE LOADING

2018· article· en· W2532803138 on OpenAlexaff
P. Gauthier, Daniel L. Benoit

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmKnee JointBiomechanicsCadaverJoint stabilityWeight-bearingGround reaction forceGaitJoint (building)HamstringMaterials scienceOrthodonticsMechanicsMedicineBiomedical engineeringAnatomyStructural engineeringKinematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryPhysicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This study describes the use of a quasi-static, 6DOF knee loading simulator using cadaveric specimens. Muscle force profiles yield repeatable results. Intra-articular pressure and contact area are dependent on loading condition and ACL integrity. Introduction Abnormal contact mechanics of the tibiofemoral joint is believed to influence the development and progression of joint derangements. As such, understanding the factors that regulate joint stability may provide insight into the underlying injury mechanisms. Muscle action is believed to be the most important factor since it is the only dynamic regulator of joint stability. Furthermore, abnormal muscle control has been experimentally linked to the development of OA [Herzog, 2007] and in vivo ACL strain [Fleming, 2001]. However, the individual contributions to knee joint contact mechanics remain unclear. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of individual muscle contributions on the tibiofemoral contact mechanics using an in-vitro experimental protocol. Methodology Contact mechanics of 6 fresh frozen cadaver knee specimens were evaluated using the UofO Oxford knee loading device. Various combinations of quadriceps-hamstring co-contraction ratios were applied to the knee while it was “suspended” between the hip and foot components of the device. Loads of six muscle groups were computed using a hill-type musculoskeletal model [Buchanan, 2004]. Simulated ground reaction forces were also applied to the knee to represent force profiles of weight acceptance during gait as it has been shown to produce peak knee joint force in the gait cycle [Shelburne et al., 2006]. For respective medial and lateral joint compartments, the mean contact area (MC- CA and LC-CA ), mean contact pressure (MC-CP and LC-CP), peak pressure ( MC-PP and LC-PP ), and centre of force displacement (MC-COFD and LC-COFD) were determined using a 4011 piezoelectric sensor form Tekscan (Tekscan Inc. Boston, MA). Additionally, the ACL was resected and measurements were repeated. Pearson correlations (r) examined the reliability of measurements as well as the effect an ACL transection on articular loads. Results Positive correlations were computed for the following: COFD with intact ACL (r=0.99), COFD with resected ACL (r=0.82), MC-COFD pre vs. post ACL- resection (0.91). Furthermore, preliminary results indicated a positive correlation between MC-CA and ACL integrity (r=0.97). Discussion The repeatability of the measured dependant variables validates the use of the knee-loading device. Interestingly, contact mechanics are more variable post ACL resection for a given muscle loading condition, indicating a decrease in knee joint stability. Also, the COFD is dependent on the different ratios of muscle loads applied to the knee, which demonstrates the importance of muscle action to the modulation of contact forces.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→