Porous versus solid shoulder implants in humeri of different bone densities: A finite element analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porous metallic prosthesis components can now be manufactured using additive manufacturing techniques, and may prove beneficial for promoting bony ingrowth, for accommodating drug delivery systems, and for reducing stress shielding. Using finite element modeling techniques, 36 scenarios (three porous stems, three bone densities, and four held arm positions) were analysed to assess the viability of porous humeral stems for use in total shoulder arthroplasty, and their resulting mechanobiological impact on the surrounding humerus bone. All three porous stems were predicted to experience stresses below the yield strength of Ti6Al4V (880 MPa) and to be capable of withstanding more than 10 million cycles of each loading scenario before failure. There was an indication that within an 80 mm region of the proximal humerus, there would be a reduction in bone resorption as stem porosity increased. Overall, this study shows promise that these porous structures are mechanically viable for incorporation into permanent shoulder prostheses to combat orthopedic infections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".