Fatigue Testing of a Titanium Tapered Rod versus Two Rods Connected by a Parallel Connector across the Cervicothoracic Junction: A Biomechanical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the fatigue failure of a tapered titanium-rod construct against two connected titanium rods (domino construct) across the cervicothoracic junction. All testing was carried out in a simulated flexion-extension plane. The 3.5-mm/6.0-mm tapered titanium rod and the 3.5-mm titanium rod, connected to a 6.0-mm titanium rod with a connector, were compared for their fatigue failures. Six specimens of each construct were tested in a cantilever displacement control method using 6 different amplitudes. Each specimen was cycled to failure or to 2.5 million cycles (run out) at 10 Hz. Failure was defined as rod fracture. The domino construct reached the test limit of 2.5 million cycles at± 0.45 mm (72 N) but failed in all the other tested amplitudes. The tapered rod construct reached the test run out limit of 2.5 million cycles at higher amplitudes than the domino construct at ± 0.9 mm and failed in all the other tested amplitudes. The study showed that the tapered-rod construct across the cervicothoracic junction is more fatigue resistant than the domino construct.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".