Patient-Specific Finite Element Modeling of the Whole Lumbar Spine Using Clinical Routine Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) Data—A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: To study the feasibility of developing finite element (FE) models of the whole lumbar spine using clinical routine multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scans to predict failure load (FL) and range of motion (ROM) parameters. (2) Methods: MDCT scans of 12 subjects (6 healthy controls (HC), mean age ± standard deviation (SD): 62.16 ± 10.24 years, and 6 osteoporotic patients (OP), mean age ± SD: 65.83 ± 11.19 years) were included in the current study. Comprehensive FE models of the lumbar spine (5 vertebrae + 4 intervertebral discs (IVDs) + ligaments) were generated (L1−L5) and simulated. The coefficients of correlation (ρ) were calculated to investigate the relationship between FE-based FL and ROM parameters and bone mineral density (BMD) values of L1−L3 derived from MDCT (BMDQCT-L1-3). Finally, Mann−Whitney U tests were performed to analyze differences in FL and ROM parameters between HC and OP cohorts. (3) Results: Mean FE-based FL value of the HC cohort was significantly higher than that of the OP cohort (1471.50 ± 275.69 N (HC) vs. 763.33 ± 166.70 N (OP), p < 0.01). A strong correlation of 0.8 (p < 0.01) was observed between FE-based FL and BMDQCT-L1-L3 values. However, no significant differences were observed between ROM parameters of HC and OP cohorts (p = 0.69 for flexion; p = 0.69 for extension; p = 0.47 for lateral bending; p = 0.13 for twisting). In addition, no statistically significant correlations were observed between ROM parameters and BMDQCT- L1-3. (4) Conclusions: Clinical routine MDCT data can be used for patient-specific FE modeling of the whole lumbar spine. ROM parameters do not seem to be significantly altered between HC and OP. In contrast, FE-derived FL may help identify patients with increased osteoporotic fracture risk in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".