MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fatigue analysis of spinal fixation system by finite element method

2007· article· en· W30871745 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sungmin Kim, In Chul Yang, Sung Youn Cho, Byong Cheol Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Cardiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Alexandra Hospital Foundation
KeywordsFinite element methodFixation (population genetics)Physical medicine and rehabilitationBiomechanicsComputer sciencePopulationInternal fixationNerve rootProcess (computing)Structural engineeringOrthodonticsEngineeringMedicineSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radicular or nerve root injuries account for a large part of the injuries that are caused by everyday accidents. As Korea moves toward becoming an aging society, we often see degenerative changes in the senior population manifested in lower back and/or spinal problems. Therefore, Spondylodesis is frequently used to heal these changes. Internal spinal fixation systems are essential for the process of Spondylodesis. This study approached the physiological dynamics of spinal fixation systems by using an experimental and computer simulation based on finite element method. The purpose of this study was to derive reliable results by interpreting design variables and fatigue in order to save time and effort in developing a new effective model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of CardiologySame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207