Facet deflection and strain are dependent on axial compression and distraction in <scp>C5</scp>–<scp>C7</scp> spinal segments under constrained flexion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Facet fractures are frequently associated with clinically observed cervical facet dislocations (CFDs); however, to date there has only been one experimental study, using functional spinal units (FSUs), which has systematically produced CFD with concomitant facet fracture. The role of axial compression and distraction on the mechanical response of the cervical facets under intervertebral motions associated with CFD in FSUs has previously been shown. The same has not been demonstrated in multi-segment lower cervical spine specimens under flexion loading (postulated to be the local injury vector associated with CFD). Methods: This study investigated the mechanical response of the bilateral inferior C6 facets of thirteen C5-C7 specimens (67±13 yr, 6 male) during non-destructive constrained flexion, superimposed with each of five axial conditions: (1) 50 N compression (simulating weight of the head); (2-4) 300, 500, and 1000 N compression (simulating the spectrum of intervertebral compression resulting from neck muscle bracing prior to head-first impact and/or externally applied compressive forces); and, (5) 2 mm of C6/C7 distraction (simulating the intervertebral distraction present during inertial loading of the cervical spine by the weight of the head). Linear mixed-effects models (α = 0.05) assessed the effect of axial condition. Results: = 203 to 375 με) and angular deflection of the bilateral inferior C6 facets relative to the C6 vertebral body (range of estimated mean difference relative to Neutral = 0.59° to 1.47°). Conclusions: These findings suggest increased facet engagement and higher load transfer through the facet joint, and potentially a higher likelihood of facet fracture under the compressed axial conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".