Influence of extracorporeal shock-wave application on normal bone in an animal model <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little information about the effects of extracorporeal shock-wave about application the effects (ESWA) of on normal bone physiology. We have therefore investigated the effects of ESWA on intact distal rabbit femora in vivo. The animals received 1500 shock-wave pulses each of different energy flux densities (EFD) on either the left or right femur or remained untreated. The effects were studied by bone scintigraphy, MRI and histopathological examination. Ten days after ESWA (0.5 mJ/mm 2 and 0.9 mJ/mm 2 EFD), local blood flow and bone metabolism were decreased, but were increased 28 days after ESWA (0.9 mJ/mm 2 ). One day after ESWA with 0.9 mJ/mm 2 EFD but not with 0.5 mJ/mm 2 , there were signs of soft-tissue oedema, epiperiosteal fluid and bone-marrow oedema on MRI. In addition, deposits of haemosiderin were found epiperiosteally and within the marrow cavity ten days after ESWA. We conclude that ESWA with both 0.5 mJ/mm 2 and 0.9 mJ/mm 2 EFD affected the normal bone physiology in the distal rabbit femur. Considerable damaging side-effects were observed with 0.9 mJ/mm 2 EFD on periosteal soft tissue and tissue within the bone-marrow cavity.
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) | 0.001 | 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".