MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4255462952 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14662629

A three-dimensional multibody computational model of lumbar spine

2021· preprint· en· W4255462952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roozbeh Seradj Zadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsComputer scienceCadaverLumbar spineLumbarLumbar vertebraeComputational modelPelvisBiomechanicsSoftwareRotation (mathematics)AnatomySimulationMedicineArtificial intelligencePhysicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lower back is the most sensitive part of the human spine and over loading and bad posture during lifting can damage this area of the body. The lumbar spine consists of five vertebrae, which are responsible for carrying the weight of the upper body and loads. Intervertebral discs allow articulation between vertebrae. These discs are primarily made of non-homogeneous soft tissue, which allows the vertebrae to move and flex in all directions. Biomechanical models have been developed in the past decades to model and to predict the behavior of the spine in response to different loads. With the advances in computer modeling technology, analytical methods have become more popular in modeling the spine. These models are more cost effective and practical compared to the early models and use of human volunteers and cadavers. Unfortunately due to the complexity of the spine, most of the models failed to offer an accurate estimation of reaction moments and forces. Most models also use proprietary and custom-made software which makes it difficult for other researchers to use and modify them. This thesis reports the development and verification of a multi-body computational model of the lumbar spine. The model comprises five lumbar vertebrae (L1 to L5) and pelvis (S1). The vertebrae are connected to each other by invertebral discs, which consist of an anatomically correct kinematic and dynamic constraints. This combination represents a six degree-of-freedom mobility and enables the model to accommodate flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The model is validated by carrying out a series of case studies including experimental motion studies. It is also used for preliminary evaluation of an ergonomical device called the dynamic trunk support (DTS), developed at Ryerson, School of Occupational and Public Health, in conjunction with the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering department. The results are in good agreement with the experimental results.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→