Subject‐specific loads on the lumbar spine in detailed finite element models scaled geometrically and kinematic‐driven by radiography images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional load-control musculoskeletal and finite element (FE) models of the spine fail to accurately predict in vivo intervertebral joint loads due mainly to the simplifications and assumptions when estimating redundant trunk muscle forces. An alternative powerful protocol that bypasses the calculation of muscle forces is to drive the detailed FE models by image-based in vivo displacements. Development of subject-specific models, however, both involves the risk of extensive radiation exposures while imaging in supine and upright postures and is time consuming in terms of the reconstruction of the vertebrae, discs, ligaments, and facets geometries. This study therefore aimed to introduce a remedy for the development of subject-specific FE models by scaling the geometry of an existing detailed FE model of the T12-S1 lumbar spine. Five subject-specific scaled models were driven by their own radiography image-based displacements in order to predict joint loads, ligament forces, facet joint forces, and disc fiber strains during relaxed upright as well as moderate flexion and extension tasks. The predicted intradiscal pressures were found in adequate agreement with in vivo data for upright, flexion, and extension tasks. There were however large intersubject variations in the estimated joint loads and facet forces.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".