Knee Implant Loosening Detection: A Vibration Analysis Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knee implant loosening is mainly caused by the weakness of the prosthesis-bone interface and is the main reason for surgical revisions. However, pre-operative diagnosis is difficult due to lack of accurate tests. In this study, we developed a vibration-based system to detect the loosening of the tibial implant of an instrumented knee prosthesis. The proposed system includes an instrumented vibrator for transcutaneous stimulation of the bone in a repeatable manner, and accelerometer sensors integrated into the implants to measure the propagated vibration. A coherence-based detection technique was proposed to distinguish the loosened implants from the secure ones. Fourteen ex vivo lower limbs were used, on which the knee prosthesis was implanted, and harmonic-forced vibration was applied on the tibia. The input-output coherence measure provided 92.26% accuracy, a high sensitivity (91.67%) and specificity (92.86%). This technique was benchmarked against power spectrum based analysis of the propagated vibration to the implant. In particular, loosening detection based on new peak appearance, peak shift, and peak flattening in power spectra showed inferior performance to the proposed coherence-based technique. As such, application of vibration on our instrumented knee prosthesis together with input-output coherence analysis enabled us to distinguish the secure from loose implants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".