MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760270913

Design and Manufacture of a Custom Ligament Loading Device for Use with Second Harmonic Generation Microscopy

2016· article· en· W2760270913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Johnathan L. Sevick, Minjia Xu, Marine Courat, Stephen H. J. Andrews, Nigel Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueCMBES Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthesisComputer scienceLigamentMicroscale chemistryMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ligament insertions into bone (entheses) represent a natural adaptation to severe material mismatch. Load is transferred from relatively flexible connective tissue to relatively inflexible bone over typically not more than a millimeter. Adequate load transfer at an insertion site is necessary for normal joint function while preventing injury. A few models have been used to assess different aspects of insertional mechanics, but all suffer from limitations. Most importantly, there has been an inability to observe the behaviour of entheses under applied load. An accurate description of enthesis load transfer mechanics has thus been lacking. A relatively new and powerful microscopic technology, second-harmonic generation (SHG), for which the University of Calgary has recently acquired an advanced microscope, has been shown to image movement on a microscale and is a promising tool to overcome the first of these difficulties, microscopic observation. The remaining difficulty remains the precise loading of ligaments during SHG imaging, highlighting the need for a custom-built loading device. Ligament loading is not an unfamiliar procedure and commercially available equipment exists to do so, however, the infrastructure for simultaneously loading and microscopically imaging entheses does not exist.The purpose of this work is to detail the device design process, from concept to manufacture, emphasizing the solutions to the design’s unique constraints and objectives and how they were determined. This includes the consolidation of a number of custom-machined components and commercially available hardware (for example: linear rail guides, strain gauges and precision motors).

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMBES ProceedingsSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207