Biomechanical properties and thermal characteristics of frozen versus thawed whole bone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanics research often requires cadaveric whole bones to be stored in a freezer and then thawed prior to use; however, the literature shows a variety of practices for thawing. Consequently, this is the first study to report the mechanical properties of fully frozen versus fully thawed whole bone as ‘proof of principle’. Two groups of 10 porcine ribs each were statistically equivalent at baseline in length, cross-sectional area, and bone mineral density. The two groups were stored in a freezer for at least 24 h, thawed in air at 23 °C for 4 h while temperature readings were taken to establish the time needed for thawing, and once again returned to the freezer for at least 24 h. Mechanical tests to failure using three-point bending were then done on the ‘frozen’ group immediately after removal from the freezer and the ‘thawed’ group when steady-state ambient air temperature was reached. Temperature readings over the entire thawing period were described by the line-of-best-fit formula T = (28.34t − 6.69)/(t + 0.38), where T = temperature in degree Celsius and t = time in hours, such that frozen specimens at t = 0 h had a temperature of −17 °C and thawed specimens at t = 1.75 h reached a steady-state temperature of 20 °C–23 °C. Mechanical tests showed that frozen versus thawed specimens had an average of 32% higher stiffness k, 34% higher ultimate force F u , 28% lower ultimate displacement δ u , 40% lower ultimate work W u , 43% higher elastic modulus E, 37% higher ultimate normal stress σ u , and 33% higher ultimate shear stress τ u . Whole ribs failed at midspan primarily by transverse cracking (16 of 20 cases), oblique cracking (three of 20 cases), or surface denting (one of 20 cases), each having unique shapes for force versus displacement graphs differentiated mainly by ultimate force location.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".