Reaction Forces and Flexion–Extension Moments Imposed on Functional Spinal Units With Constrained and Unconstrained In Vitro Testing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mechanical goal of in vitro testing systems is to minimize differences between applied and actual forces and moments experienced by spinal units. This study quantified the joint reaction forces and reaction flexion-extension moments during dynamic compression loading imposed throughout the physiological flexion-extension range of motion. Constrained (fixed base) and unconstrained (floating base) testing systems were compared. Sixteen porcine spinal units were assigned to both testing groups. Following conditioning tests, specimens were dynamically loaded for 1 cycle with a 1 Hz compression waveform to a peak load of 1 kN and 2 kN while positioned in five different postures (neutral, 100% and 300% of the flexion and extension neutral zone), totaling ten trials per functional spinal unit (FSU). A six degree-of-freedom force and torque sensor was used to measure peak reaction forces and moments for each trial. Shear reaction forces were significantly greater (25.5 N-85.7 N) when the testing system was constrained compared to unconstrained (p < 0.029). The reaction moment was influenced by posture (p = 0.037), particularly in C5C6 spinal units. In 300% extension (C5C6), the reaction moment was, on average, 9.9 N·m greater than the applied moment in both testing systems and differed from all other postures (p < 0.001). The reaction moment error was, on average, 0.45 N·m at all other postures. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that comparable reaction moments can be achieved with unconstrained systems, but without inducing appreciable shear reaction forces.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".