Investigation of Reaction Forces in the Thoracolumbar Fascia during Different Activities: A Mechanistic Numerical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal instability remains a complex phenomenon to study while the cause of low back pain continues to challenge researchers. The role of fascia in biomechanics adds to the complexity of spine biomechanics but offers a new window from which to investigate our spines. Specifically, the thoracolumbar fascia may have an important role in spine biomechanics, and thus the purpose of this study was to access the mechanical influence of the thoracolumbar fascia on spine biomechanics during different simulated activities. A numerical finite element model of the lumbar spine inclusive of the intra-abdominal and intra-muscular regions as well as the thoracolumbar fascia was constructed and validated. Four different loading scenarios were simulated while deformation, stress, pressure, and reaction forces between the thoracolumbar fascia and spine were measured. Model validation was accomplished through comparison to in vivo and ex vivo published studies. Force transmission between the thoracolumbar fascia and the spine increased 40% comparing kyphotic and squatting lifting patterns. Further, the importance of reciprocating paraspinal and intra-abdominal pressures was demonstrated. It was also found that tension in the thoracolumbar fascia remains even in a simulated prone position. This numerical analysis allowed for an objective interpretation of the loads conveyed through the thoracolumbar fascia in different positional or lifting scenarios. Based on validation studies, it would appear to be a viable experimental platform from which insight can be derived. The loads in the thoracolumbar fascia vary considerably based on simulated tasks and are linked to the pressures in the paraspinal and intra-abdominal regions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".