MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personalized 3D-printed endoprostheses for limb sparing in dogs: Modeling and <i>in vitro</i> testing

2019· article· en· W2964213963 on OpenAlexafffund
Anatolie Timercan, Vladimir Braïlovski, Yvan Petit, Bertrand Lussier, Bernard Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint HyacintheUniversité de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywords3d printedBiomedical engineeringIn vitroComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interactionEngineering drawingEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteosarcoma is the most common type of bone cancer in dogs, treatable by amputation or limb-sparing surgery. For the latter, commercially available plate - endoprosthesis assemblies require contouring, to be adapted to the patient's bone geometry, and lead to sub-optimal results. The use of additively-manufactured personalized endoprostheses and cutting guides for distal radius limb-sparing surgery in dogs presents a promising alternative. Specialized software is used for the bone structure reconstruction from the patient's CT scans and for the design of endoprostheses and cutting guides. The prostheses are manufactured from a titanium alloy using a laser powder bed fusion system, while the cutting guides are manufactured from an ABS plastic using a fused deposition modeling system. A finite element model of an instrumented limb was developed and validated using experimental testing of a cadaveric limb implanted with a personalized endoprosthesis. Personalized endoprostheses and cutting guides can reduce limb sparing surgery time by 25-50% and may reduce the risk of implant failure. The numerical model was validated using the kinematics and force-displacement diagrams of the implant-limb construct. The model indicated that a modulus of elasticity of an implant material ranging from 25 to 50 GPa would improve the stress distribution within the implant. The results of the current study will allow optimization of the design of the personal implants in both veterinary and human patients.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Engineering & PhysicsSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207