Lower Cervical Spine Motion Segment Computational Model Validation: Kinematic and Kinetic Response for Quasi-Static and Dynamic Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced computational human body models (HBM) enabling enhanced safety require verification and validation at different levels or scales. Specifically, the motion segments, which are the building blocks of a detailed neck model, must be validated with representative experimental data to have confidence in segment and, ultimately, full neck model response. In this study, we introduce detailed finite element motion segment models and assess the models for quasi-static and dynamic loading scenarios. Finite element segment models at all levels in the lower human cervical spine were developed from scans of a 26-yr old male subject. Material properties were derived from the in vitro experimental data. The segment models were simulated in quasi-static loading in flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation, and at dynamic rates in flexion and extension in comparison to previous experimental studies and new dynamic experimental data introduced in this study. Single-valued experimental data did not provide adequate information to assess the model biofidelity, while application of traditional corridor methods highlighted that data sets with higher variability could lead to an incorrect conclusion of improved model biofidelity. Data sets with continuous or multiple moment-rotation measurements enabled the use of cross-correlation for an objective assessment of the model and highlighted the importance of assessing all motion segments of the lower cervical spine to evaluate the model biofidelity. The presented new segment models of the lower cervical spine, assessed for range of motion and dynamic/traumatic loading scenarios, provide a foundation to construct a biofidelic model of the spine and neck, which can be used to understand and mitigate injury for improved human safety in the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".