An in vitro study of glenoid implant peripheral peg interface mechanics during eccentric loading and lift‐off
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glenoid implants used in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties typically incorporate peripheral pegs as a design feature to support eccentric loads. These peripheral pegs and the implant-cement-bone interface undergo substantial cyclic tensile-compressive loads during normal activity. Therefore, these pegs are of interest in translating the micromechanics of local implant fixation failure to the biomechanics of gross anatomic failure of the glenoid implant after total shoulder arthroplasty. This study used an in vitro peg-cement-bone construct which incorporated bone tissue acquired from osteoarthritic patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty. Strain distributions in the peripheral peg-cement-bone interfaces were analyzed under loading conditions emulating glenoid implant edge displacements. It was found that tensile strains in the interfaces were highest near the backside-peg junction and were greater in magnitude than compressive strains. Notably, strains near the peg's fixation channels were relatively low. These results suggest that cracks may initiate around the peg near the backside and travel downward to cause broader fixation failure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".