The Impact of an Open-Book Pelvic Ring Injury on Bone Strain: Validation of a Finite Element Model and Analysis Within the Gait Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The threshold for surgical stabilization for an open-book pelvic fracture is not well defined. The purpose of this research was to validate the biomechanical behavior of a specimen-specific pelvic finite element (FE) model with an open-book fracture with the biomechanical behavior of a cadaveric pelvis in double leg stance configuration under physiologic loading, and to utilize the validated model to compare open book versus intact strain patterns during gait. A cadaveric pelvis was experimentally tested under compressive loading in double leg stance, intact, and with a simulated open-book fracture. An intact FE model of this specimen was reanalyzed with an equivalent simulated open-book fracture. Comparison of the FE generated and experimentally measured strains yielded an R2 value of 0.92 for the open-book fracture configuration. Strain patterns in the intact and fractured models were compared throughout the gait cycle. In double leg stance and heel-strike/heel-off models, tensile strains decreased, especially in the pubic ramus contralateral to the injury, and compressive strains increased in the sacroiliac region of the injured side. In the midstance/midswing gait configuration, higher tensile and compressive FE strains were observed on the midstance side of the fractured versus intact model and decreased along the superior and inferior pubic rami and ischium, with midswing side strains reduced almost to zero in the fractured model. Identified in silico patterns align with clinical understanding of open-book fracture pathology suggesting future potential of FE models to quantify instability and optimize fixation strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".