Effects of clamping force on carrying energy ability of a harmonic scalpel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The carrying energy of a harmonic scalpel determines biological tissue coagulation quality, and is related to the clamping force between the blade of a harmonic scalpel and the biological tissue. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of clamping force on the carrying energy ability of a harmonic scalpel. First, the carrying energy model of a harmonic scalpel transducer is developed, which is regarded as a mass-spring-damper oscillator. Then, the characteristic parameters at various clamping forces are determined by a least-square parameter identification method, which represent the carrying energy ability of harmonic scalpel. Furthermore, the carrying energy ability relative to clamping force is evaluated by coagulating biological tissue in vitro. The results show that mass, force resistance and stiffness of mass-spring-damper oscillator increase with increasing clamping force, which reflects the increase of the harmonic scalpel carrying energy ability. This trends plateaus with the continuous increase of clamping force. Correspondingly, the coagulation depth of biological tissue increases with the increase of clamping force, and an optimal clamping force exists. The results of the histological investigations are in good agreement with carrying energy under different clamping force conditions.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".