Credibility assessment of patient-specific biomechanical models to investigate proximal junctional failure in clinical cases with adult spine deformity using ASME V&V40 standard
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational models are increasingly used to assess spine biomechanics and support surgical planning. However, varying levels of model verification and validation, along with characterization of uncertainty effects limit the level of confidence in their predictive potential. The objective was to assess the credibility of an adult spine deformity instrumentation model for proximal junction failure (PJF) analysis using the ASME V&V40:2018 framework. To assess model applicability, the surgery, erected posture, and flexion movement of actual clinical cases were simulated. The loads corresponding to PJF indicators for a group of asymptomatic patients and a group of PJF patients were compared. Model consistency was demonstrated by finding PJF indicators significantly higher for the simulated PJF vs. asymptomatic patients. A detailed sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification were performed to further establish the model credibility.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it