MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559800044 · doi:10.1115/1.4035368

On the Two-Dimensional Simplification of Three-Dimensional Cementless Hip Stem Numerical Models

2016· article· en· W2559800044 on OpenAlexafffund
Fernando J. Quevedo González, M. Reimeringer, Natalia Nuño

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)Constant (computer programming)Computer scienceFinite element methodPlane (geometry)AlgorithmSimulationStructural engineeringMathematicsGeometryEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models are commonly used to analyze the mechanical behavior of the bone under different conditions (i.e., before and after arthroplasty). They can provide detailed information but they are numerically expensive and this limits their use in cases where large or numerous simulations are required. On the other hand, 2D models show less computational cost, but the precision of results depends on the approach used for the simplification. Two main questions arise: Are the 3D results adequately represented by a 2D section of the model? Which approach should be used to build a 2D model that provides reliable results compared to the 3D model? In this paper, we first evaluate if the stem symmetry plane used for generating the 2D models of bone-implant systems adequately represents the results of the full 3D model for stair climbing activity. Then, we explore three different approaches that have been used in the past for creating 2D models: (1) without side-plate (WOSP), (2) with variable thickness side-plate and constant cortical thickness (SPCT), and (3) with variable thickness side-plate and variable cortical thickness (SPVT). From the different approaches investigated, a 2D model including a side-plate best represents the results obtained with the full 3D model with much less computational cost. The side-plate needs to have variable thickness, while the cortical bone thickness can be kept constant.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207