Analytical evaluation of stresses and displacements of an intervertebral disc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the intervertebral disc response to mechanical loads is important to prevent back injuries. The experimental and the finite element methods are widely used for that purpose but methodological triangulation is deficient due to lack of a complementary method. This study aims at choosing theories and assumptions that could be used to develop an analytical model for stress analysis of intervertebral discs. Thin-shell and beam-on-elastic-foundation theories are used in conjunction with an iterative method to account for large deformation of the disc. The model simulates an axial compression load acting on a simplified axisymmetric disc composed of a multi-shell linear and isotropic structure surrounding a pressurized cavity. The highly deformable lamellae are idealized by either circular or parabolic arches in the sagittal plane, and their effect on stress and strain response are compared. The circumferential and longitudinal stresses are compared to those of a simplified finite element model. The comparison shows that the analytical approach is promising and allows to identify improvements for future studies. The use of a parabolic profile is advantageous and allows to account for the interactive support of the lamellae near the endplates. The method should be adapted to improve bulge deformation obtained across the thickness of anulus fibrosus, and the model should include material anisotropy and hyperelasticity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".