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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".