MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606168956 · doi:10.1115/1.4036464

Lower Cervical Spine Motion Segment Computational Model Validation: Kinematic and Kinetic Response for Quasi-Static and Dynamic Loading

2017· article· en· W2606168956 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsComputer scienceFinite element methodRotation (mathematics)Computational modelExperimental dataSimulationRange (aeronautics)Structural engineeringBiomechanicsMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.277 · 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