Biomechanical Modelling of a Direct Vertebral Translation Instrumentation System: Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many new spine instrumentation concepts were introduced in recent years, like the incremental direct vertebral translation. The objective was to develop a biomechanical model in order to analyze the biomechanics of this instrumentation system. The patient-specific spine model was built using the 3D reconstruction based on bi-planar radiographs of a scoliotic patient (thoraco-lumbar Cobb: 49 degrees ). The mechanical properties were derived from literature, experiments on cadaver spines and patient's side bending radiographs. Each screw construct was modelled by four rigid bodies connected each other by kinematic joints. The screw-vertebra flexible joint was represented by 3 experimentally derived non-linear springs, and the rods by non-linear flexible elements. The correction manoeuvres were simulated by lowering the rod, tightening the crimps (incremental segmental translation) and applying secondary correction manoeuvres (direct vertebra derotation, compression, distraction and construct tightening). The simulations showed that the system allows a good force distribution among implants. The long post pushing and pulling contributed, to a great extent, to a global correction in the coronal plane, while the crimp tightening had more important effect in the sagittal plane. The preliminary results illustrated the effectiveness of local correction by a direct vertebra translation technique. Our next step is to validate the model and compare the performance of this strategy with other spinal instrumentation systems.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".