MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2601335703

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CARTILAGE FROM CAM-TYPE FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT DEFORMITIES

2018· article· en· W2601335703 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Speirs, Hanspeter Frei, Mario Lamontagne, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementCartilageOsteoarthritisMedicineFemoral headCadaveric spasmDeformityBiomechanicsAnatomyOrthodonticsSurgeryPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The cartilage layer from cam-type femoroacetabular impingement deformities had lower stiffness and increased permeability compared to normal cartilage. This is consistent with osteoarthritis and supports the hypothesis of abnormal contact stresses. Introduction Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has recently been associated with osteoarthritic (OA) degeneration of the hip and may be responsible for up to 90% of adult idiopathic OA cases. FAI results from deformities in the hip joint which may lead to abnormal contact stresses and degeneration. The more common cam-type deformity consists of a convex anterior femoral head-neck junction which impinges the anterosuperior acetabular rim during flexion and internal rotation of the hip. Increased subchondral bone density has been reported in this region which may be a bone remodelling response to increased contact stress. The abnormal contact is expected to cause degeneration of the cartilage layer. The goal of this study was to assess the mechanical properties of cartilage retrieved from the cam deformity and to compare this with normal articular cartilage from the femoral head. It is hypothesised that the cartilage will have a lower elastic modulus and higher permeability than normal cartilage. Patients & Methods Osteochondral biopsies were retrieved from nine patients undergoing surgical correction of a symptomatic cam deformity as well as 10 fresh cadaveric specimens (10 hips, 6 donors). An indentation stress relaxation test was performed on each specimen to 10% of the estimated cartilage thickness. A needle penetration test was performed to accurately measure the thickness. The equilibrium modulus was calculated per Hayes et al. A specimen-specific axisymmetric finite element model was used in a non-linear optimization to obtain the fibril-reinforced poroelastic properties of the cartilage that best fit the experimental data. The material properties were non-fibrillar modulus (E s ), Poisson9s ratio (ν s ) and permeability (k) and strain-independent and –dependent moduli (E 0 , E e )[4]. Results The equilibrium modulus was 0.14 MPa and 0.63 from surgical and cadaver specimens, respectively (p=0.002). Compared to cadaver specimens, E s in surgical specimens was 73% lower (p=0.01), ν s was 43% lower (p=0.01) and k was an order of magnitude higher (p=0.02). Fibril moduli were not significantly different (p>0.35). Discussion/Conclusions This study showed decreased elastic modulus and increased permeability in cartilage from cam deformities compared to cadaver controls. These differences are consistent with changes expected in osteoarthritic cartilage degeneration. Fibril moduli were 14% to 57% lower in surgical specimens consistent with fibrillation, however results were not significant due to high variability. Altered cellular activity and proteoglycan depletion has been reported in cartilage of cam deformities, which are similar to changes expected in osteoarthritis. The altered mechanical and biochemical properties of this cartilage therefore support the hypothesis that osteoarthritis is secondary to cam FAI deformities and is a result of abnormal contact stresses between the deformity and acetabular rim.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.175 · 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→