MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410215425 · doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1468926

Skeletal growth and development dictate the processes of vertebral fracture in the pediatric spine; a review emphasizing fracture biomechanics of the vertebral body during the period of skeletal immaturity

2025· review· en· W4410215425 on OpenAlexafffund
John G. McMorran, Diane E. Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineBiomechanicsContext (archaeology)Vertebral bodyEtiologyAnatomyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infancy, childhood, and adolescence involve changing body proportions, muscular strength, and the complex processes of skeletal growth, contributing to a unique subset of biomechanical considerations when vertebral fractures result from falls from height, motor vehicle accidents, nonaccidental injuries, and sport and manual labour. In this review, the biomechanics of compression fractures, burst fractures, seatbelt syndrome, nonaccidental trauma, defects of the vertebral endplate, and ring apophysis fractures are all detailed regarding their manifestation in the pediatric spine. Interactions between pediatric diseases, the intervertebral disc, and the spine's facet joints are also briefly discussed, lending additional context toward the unique etiologies of pediatric vertebral fracture. The present narrative review seeks to provide a detailed overview of the key relationships responsible for the unique biomechanical considerations governing vertebral and endplate fracture, in the pediatric population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207