Shear stiffness in the lower cervical spine: Effect of sequential posterior element injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of the posterior ligaments and facet joints on the shear stiffness of lower cervical functional spinal units in anterior, posterior, and lateral shear. Five functional spinal units were loaded in anterior, posterior, and right lateral shear up to 100 N using a custom-designed apparatus in a materials testing machine. Specimens were tested in three conditions: intact, with the posterior ligaments severed, and with the facet joints removed. There was a significant decrease in anterior stiffness in the 20-100 N load range from 186 (range: 98-327) N/mm in the intact condition to 105 (range: 78-142) N/mm in the disc-only condition (p = 0.03). Posterior stiffness between these condition decreased significantly from 134 (range: 92-182) N/mm to 119 (range: 83-181) N/mm (p = 0.03). There was no significant effect of posterior ligament removal on shear stiffness. No significant differences were found in the lateral direction or in the 0-20 N range for any direction. Under a 100-N shear load, the facet joints played a significant role in the stiffness of the cervical spine in the anterior-posterior direction, but not in the lateral direction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".