Image-based finite-element modeling of the human femur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracture is considered a critical clinical endpoint in skeletal pathologies including osteoporosis and bone metastases. However, current clinical guidelines are limited with respect to identifying cases at high risk of fracture, as they do not account for many mechanical determinants that contribute to bone fracture. Improving fracture risk assessment is an important area of research with clear clinical relevance. Patient-specific numerical musculoskeletal models generated from diagnostic images are widely used in biomechanics research and may provide the foundation for clinical tools used to quantify fracture risk. However, prior to clinical translation, in vitro validation of predictions generated from such numerical models is necessary. Despite adopting radically different models, in vitro validation of image-based finite element (FE) models of the proximal femur (predicting strains and failure loads) have shown very similar, encouraging levels of accuracy. The accuracy of such in vitro models has motivated their application to clinical studies of osteoporotic and metastatic fractures. Such models have demonstrated promising but heterogeneous results, which may be explained by the lack of a uniform strategy with respect to FE modeling of the human femur. This review aims to critically discuss the state of the art of image-based femoral FE modeling strategies, highlighting principal features and differences among current approaches. Quantitative results are also reported with respect to the level of accuracy achieved from in vitro evaluations and clinical applications and are used to motivate the adoption of a standardized approach/workflow for image-based FE modeling of the femur.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".