Instrumented Spinal Cord Surrogate Using Optical Fiber: Role of the Fiber's Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro replication of traumatic spinal cord injury is necessary to understand its biomechanics and to improve prevention devices and care. During the trauma, the spinal cord withstands an impaction at high velocity. In order to fully assess spinal cord compression, a physical spinal cord surrogate instrumented with bare optical fibers is a promising avenue. The sensing is based on light transmission loss observed in optical fibers subjected to bending. In this paper, the role of the fibers' position within the surrogate is presented and discussed. The closer the fiber from the surface of the spinal cord, the more sensitive it is to small compression magnitude. A threshold value of 15 % was observed for the fiber located at the upper surface of the surrogate. However, this fiber was not able to record compression over 40 %. Another fiber located in the middle of the surrogate was needed to record compression between 40 % to 85 %. Using two fibers allows continuous recording of compressions ranging from 15 % to 85 %. This study shows the relevance of using multiple fibers in order to fully assess the compression of the spinal cord surrogate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".