The miniaturization ligament performance probe (MLPP) system for the three-dimensional analysis of ligament strain patterns throughout ankle motion 
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundMeasuring strain patterns of joint ligaments in various positions informs our understanding their function. However, studies on the biomechanical properties of ankle ligaments are few, and the tensile properties of each ligament during motion have not been described because existing biomechanical sensors are too big to insert within the ankle. This study aimed to verify the validity of a novel miniaturized ligament performance probe (MLPP) system for measuring the strain pattern of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) during ankle motion. MethodsThe system is composed of a strain gauge (force probe), amplifier unit, display unit, and logger, which are widely used industrially. Ten fresh-frozen, through-the-knee, lower extremity, cadaveric specimens were used. The MLPP was sutured into the midsubstance of ATFL fibers. To measure tensile force, a round metal disk (clock; 150 mm in diameter), with a 6-mm-diameter hole every 30°, was fixed on the plantar aspect of the foot. With a 1.2-Nm load applied to the ankle and subtalar joint complex, the ankle was manually moved from 15° dorsiflexion to 30° plantar flexion. The clock was rotated every 30° to measure ATFL strain at each end point detected by the miniature force probe. ResultsThroughout motion required to shift from 15° dorsiflexion to 30° plantar flexion, the ATFL tensed near 20° plantar flexion, and strain increased as the plantar flexion angle increased. The ATFL was maximally tensioned at 3 and 4 o’clock in the inversion position. In the elastic range in which the ATFL is capable of returning to its original shape and length, tensile force was proportional to strain in all cases. ConclusionThe MLPP system could be used to effectively determine the relationship between limb position and small ankle ligament strain patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".