System Setup to Deliver Air Impact Forces to a Sheep Limb: Preparation for Model Development of Blast-Related Heterotopic Ossification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a significant complication for wounded warriors with traumatic limb loss. Although this pathologic condition negatively impacts the general population, ectopic bone has been observed with higher frequency for service members injured in Iraq and Afghanistan due to blast injuries. Several factors, including a traumatic insult, bioburden, tourniquet and wound vacuum usage, and bone fractures or fragments have been associated with increased HO for service members. A large combat-relevant animal model is needed to further understand ectopic bone etiology and develop new pragmatic solutions for reducing HO formation and recurrence. OBJECTIVE: This study outlines the optimization of a blast system that may be used to simulate combat-relevant trauma for HO and replicate percussion blast experienced in theater. METHODS: We tested the repeatability and reproducibility of an air impact device (AID) at various pressure settings and compared it with a model of blunt force trauma for HO induction. Furthermore, we assessed the ability of the higher-power air delivery system to injure host tissue, displace metal particulate, and disperse bone chips in cadaveric sheep limbs. RESULTS: Data demonstrated that the air delivery setup generated battlefield-relevant blast forces. When the AID was charged to 40, 80, and 100 psi, the outputs were 229 (SD 13) N, 778 (SD 50) N, and 1085 (SD 114) N, respectively, compared with the blunt force model which proposed only 168 (SD 11) N. For the 100-psi AID setup, the force equaled a 5.8-kg charge weight of trinitrotoluene at a standoff distance of approximately 2.62 m, which would replicate a dismounted improvised explosive device blast in theater. Dispersion data showed that the delivery system would have the ability to cause host tissue trauma and effectively disperse metal particulate and host bone chips in local musculature compared with the standard blunt force model (13 mm vs 2 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that a high-pressure AID was repeatable or reproducible, had the ability to function as a simulated battlefield blast that can model military HO scenarios, and will allow for factors including blast trauma to translate toward a large animal model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".