MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286698492 · doi:10.1115/1.4055037

Enhancing the Biofidelity of an Upper Cervical Spine Finite Element Model Within the Physiologic Range of Motion and Its Effect on the Full Ligamentous Neck Model Response

2022· article· en· W4286698492 on OpenAlexaff
Prasannaah Hadagali, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange of motionCervical spineRotation (mathematics)Finite element methodLigamentCervical vertebraeRange (aeronautics)Position (finance)GeologyMathematicsMedicineStructural engineeringGeometryAnatomySurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary finite element (FE) neck models are developed in a neutral posture; however, evaluation of injury risk for out-of-position impacts requires neck model repositioning to non-neutral postures, with much of the motion occurring in the upper cervical spine (UCS). Current neck models demonstrate a limitation in predicting the intervertebral motions within the UCS within the range of motion, while recent studies have highlighted the importance of including the tissue strains resulting from repositioning FE neck models to predict injury risk. In the current study, the ligamentous cervical spine from a contemporary neck model (GHBMC M50 v4.5) was evaluated in flexion, extension, and axial rotation by applying moments from 0 to 1.5 N·m in 0.5 N·m increments, as reported in experimental studies and corresponding to the physiologic loading of the UCS. Enhancements to the UCS model were identified, including the C0-C1 joint-space and alar ligament orientation. Following geometric enhancements, an analysis was undertaken to determine the UCS ligament laxities, using a sensitivity study followed by an optimization study. The ligament laxities were optimized to UCS-level experimental data from the literature. The mean percent difference between UCS model response and experimental data improved from 55% to 23% with enhancements. The enhanced UCS model was integrated with a ligamentous cervical spine (LS) model and assessed with independent experimental data. The mean percent difference between the LS model and the experimental data improved from 46% to 35% with the integration of the enhanced UCS model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207