Impact of spinal rod stiffness on porcine lumbar biomechanics: Finite element model validation and parametric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-dimensional finite element model of the porcine lumbar spine (L1-L6) was used to assess the effect of spinal rod stiffness on lumbar biomechanics. The model was validated through a comparison with in vitro measurements performed on six porcine spine specimens. The validation metrics employed included intervertebral rotations and the nucleus pressure in the first instrumented intervertebral disc. The numerical results obtained suggest that rod stiffness values as low as 0.1 GPa are required to reduce the mobility gradient between the adjacent and instrumented segments and the nucleus pressures across the porcine lumbar spine significantly. Stiffness variations above this threshold value have no significant effect on spine biomechanics. For such low-stiffness rods, intervertebral rotations in the instrumented zone must be monitored closely in order to guarantee solid fusion. Looking ahead, the proposed model will serve to examine the transverse process hooks and variable stiffness rods in order to further smooth the transition between the adjacent and instrumented segments, while preserving the stability of the instrumented zone, which is needed for fusion.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".