The effect of axial twist angle on <i>in vitro</i> cumulative injury load tolerance: a magnitude-weighting approach for axial twist exposures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Axial twisting exposures have been repeatedly identified as a risk factor for occupational low back pain and injury, but there is a need for an improved understanding of the role of axial twist magnitude and associated joint moment as modifiers of the cumulative load tolerance of intervertebral joints. The purpose of this study was to mathematically characterise the relationship between axial twist motion magnitudes and the cumulative load tolerance of porcine cervical functional spinal units. Twenty-four porcine functional spinal units were fixed in a mechanical testing system under compressive load (15% of compressive tolerance) and in a neutral flexion-extension posture. Specimens were axially twisted to 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15 or 17.5 degrees at 1 Hz until failure or 21,600 total cycles. Cumulative applied axial twist moment was recorded, and exponential functions were fit to the twist magnitude-cumulative twist moment measures. Weighting-factor functions for cumulative axial twist moment injury risk were developed based on absolute axial twist magnitude and twist normalised to maximum range of motion. While caution should be used in extrapolating these findings to human evaluation, a developed non-linear weighting-factor model has potential for use in assessment of cumulative axial twist injury risk in occupational tasks.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it