Region partitioning of articular cartilage with streaming-potential-based parameters and indentation maps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Articular cartilage exhibits site-specific tissue inhomogeneity, for which the tissue properties may continuously vary across the articular surface. To facilitate practical applications such as studying site-specific cartilage degeneration, the inhomogeneity may be approximated with several distinct region-wise variations, with one set of tissue properties for one region. A clustering method was previously developed to partition such regions using cartilage indentation-relaxation and thickness mapping instead of simply using surface geometry. In the present study, a quantitative parameter based on streaming potential measurement was introduced as an additional feature to assess the applicability of the methodology with independent datasets. Experimental data were collected from 24 sets of femoral condyles, extracted from fresh porcine stifle joints, through streaming potential mapping, automated indentation, and needle penetration tests. K-means clustering and Elbow method were used to find optimal region partitions. Consistent with previous findings, three regions were suggested for either lateral or medial condyle regardless of left or right joint. The region shapes were approximately triangular or trapezoidal, which was similar to what was found previously. Streaming potentials were confirmed to be region-dependent, but not significantly different among joints. The cartilage was significantly thicker in the medial than lateral condyles. The region areas were consistent among joints, and comparable to that found in a previous study. The present study demonstrated the capability of region partitioning methods with different variables, which may facilitate new applications whenever site-specific tissue properties must be considered.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".