MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040881603 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2020.1789863

Image-based finite-element modeling of the human femur

2020· review· en· W3040881603 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowFinite element methodOsteoporosisComputer scienceFracture (geology)BiomechanicsFemurOrthodonticsBiomedical engineeringArtificial intelligenceData miningMedicineSurgeryStructural engineeringPathologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it