Strain pattern of each ligamentous band of the superficial deltoid ligament: a cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few reports on the detailed biomechanics of the deltoid ligament, and no studies have measured the biomechanics of each ligamentous band because of the difficulty in inserting sensors into the narrow ligaments. This study aimed to measure the strain pattern of the deltoid ligament bands directly using a Miniaturization Ligament Performance Probe (MLPP) system. METHODS: The MLPP was sutured into the ligamentous bands of the deltoid ligament in 6 fresh-frozen lower extremity cadaveric specimens. The strain was measured using a round metal disk (clock) fixed on the plantar aspect of the foot. The ankle was manually moved from 15° dorsiflexion to 30° plantar flexion, and a 1.2-N-m force was applied to the ankle and subtalar joint complex. Then the clock was rotated every 30° to measure the strain of each ligamentous band at each endpoint. RESULTS: The tibionavicular ligament (TNL) began to tense at 10° plantar flexion, and the tension becomes stronger as the angle increased; the TNL worked most effectively in plantar flex-abduction. The tibiospring ligament (TSL) began to tense gradually at 15° plantar flexion, and the tension became stronger as the angle increased. The TSL worked most effectively in abduction. The tibiocalcaneal ligament (TCL) began to tense gradually at 0° dorsiflexion, and the tension became stronger as the angle increased. The TCL worked most effectively in pronation (dorsiflexion-abduction). The superficial posterior tibiotalar ligament (SPTTL) began to tense gradually at 0° dorsiflexion, and the tension became stronger as the angle increased, with the SPTTL working most effectively in dorsiflexion. CONCLUSION: Our results show the biomechanical function of the superficial deltoid ligament and may contribute to determining which ligament is damaged during assessment in the clinical setting.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".