MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205164025 · doi:10.1002/cnm.3570

Comparison of numerical methods for cerebrospinal fluid representation and <scp>fluid–structure</scp> interaction during transverse impact of a finite element spinal cord model

2022· article· en· W4205164025 on OpenAlexafffund
Aleksander Rycman, Stewart McLachlin, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeneral Motors of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsFluid–structure interactionCerebrospinal fluidFinite element methodMechanicsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsDura materEulerian pathPhysicsMathematicsStructural engineeringEngineeringApplied mathematicsMedicineLagrangianAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spinal cord impacts can have devastating consequences. Computational models can investigate such impacts but require biofidelic numerical representations of the neural tissues and fluid-structure interaction with cerebrospinal fluid. Achieving this biofidelity is challenging, particularly for efficient implementation of the cerebrospinal fluid in full computational human body models. The goal of this study was to assess the biofidelity and computational efficiency of fluid-structure interaction methods representing the cerebrospinal fluid interacting with the spinal cord, dura, and pia mater using experimental pellet impact test data from bovine spinal cords. Building on an existing finite element model of the spinal cord and pia mater, an orthotropic hyperelastic constitutive model was proposed for the dura mater and fit to literature data. The dura mater and cerebrospinal fluid were integrated with the existing finite element model to assess four fluid-structure interaction methods under transverse impact: Lagrange, pressurized volume, smoothed particle hydrodynamics, and arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian. The Lagrange method resulted in an overly stiff mechanical response, whereas the pressurized volume method over-predicted compression of the neural tissues. Both the smoothed particle hydrodynamics and arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian methods were able to effectively model the impact response of the pellet on the dura mater, outflow of the cerebrospinal fluid, and compression of the spinal cord; however, the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian compute time was approximately five times higher than smoothed particle hydrodynamics. Crucial to implementation in human body models, the smoothed particle hydrodynamics method provided a computationally efficient and representative approach to model spinal cord fluid-structure interaction during transverse impact.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.428 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207