Material Mapping of QCT-Derived Scapular Models: A Comparison with Micro-CT Loaded Specimens Using Digital Volume Correlation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subject- and site-specific modeling techniques greatly improve finite element models (FEMs) derived from clinical-resolution CT data. A variety of density-modulus relationships are used in scapula FEMs, but the sensitivity to selection of relationships has yet to be experimentally evaluated. The objectives of this study were to compare quantitative-CT (QCT) derived FEMs mapped with different density-modulus relationships and material mapping strategies to experimentally loaded cadaveric scapular specimens. Six specimens were loaded within a micro-CT (33.5 μm isotropic voxels) using a custom-hexapod loading device. Digital volume correlation (DVC) was used to estimate full-field displacements by registering images in pre- and post-loaded states. Experimental loads were measured using a 6-DOF load cell. QCT-FEMs replicated the experimental setup using DVC-driven boundary conditions (BCs) and were mapped with one of fifteen density-modulus relationships using elemental or nodal material mapping strategies. Models were compared based on predicted QCT-FEM nodal reaction forces compared to experimental load cell measurements and linear regression of the full-field nodal displacements compared to the DVC full-field displacements. Comparing full-field displacements, linear regression showed slopes ranging from 0.86 to 1.06, r-squared values of 0.82-1.00, and max errors of 0.039 mm for all three Cartesian directions. Nearly identical linear regression results occurred for both elemental and nodal material mapping strategies. Comparing QCT-FEM to experimental reaction forces, errors ranged from - 46 to 965% for all specimens, with specimen-specific errors as low as 3%. This study utilized volumetric imaging combined with mechanical loading to derive full-field experimental measurements to evaluate various density-modulus relationships required for QCT-FEMs applied to whole-bone scapular loading. The results suggest that elemental and nodal material mapping strategies are both able to simultaneously replicate experimental full-field displacements and reactions forces dependent on the density-modulus relationship used.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".