Experimental study on pressure response to graded spinal canal compromise in an in vitro burst fracture mode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spinal cord compression is a known cause of spinal cord injury. The purpose of this study is to measure pressure response during graded spinal cord compression. This information will be important in evaluating the amount of canal compromise that can be tolerated before risking neurological injury secondary to cord compression. To date, there is no published study that has evaluated pressure response to graded canal compromise in the thoracic and lumbar spine.Materials and Methods: A comparative biomechanical investigation using an in vitro burst fracture model of graded spinal canal compromise was performed. Four porcine spines, sectioned into four thoracics and four lumbar segments, were harvested from 30 kg pigs. Graded spinal canal compromise (0.75 mm/30 s) was achieved using a modified 12.7 mm dynamic hip screw. The real-time ventral epidural pressure was measured at each 0.75 mm of canal compromise.Results: A significant increase in spinal cord pressure was recorded during graded spinal cord compression (P < 0.0001), and there were no statistical differences between the increase in pressure measured in the thoracic and lumbar spinal segments (P = 0.83). The pressure to degree of canal compromise curve exhibited an initial rapid rise in pressure followed by incrementally smaller increases in pressure as canal compromise increased.Conclusions: Spinal cord pressure increased with any degree of canal compromise, the most important rise occurring with initial compression. Future studies will evaluate the usefulness of laminectomy in vivo to completely restore ventral epidural pressure in the thoracic and lumbar spine.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".