MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412380908 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2025.2530658

Understanding the effect of lumbar lordosis angle on vertebral load distribution during walking

2025· article· en· W4412380908 on OpenAlex
Jie Chen, Patria Hume, Hannah Wyatt, Ted Yeung, Julie Choisne

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsLumbar lordosisLumbarLordosisLoad distributionOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineAnatomySurgeryRadiographyStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atypical sagittal spinopelvic alignment is correlated with exacerbating lower back pain (LBP). This study investigated the effects of simulated sagittal spinopelvic alignment via altered lumbar lordosis (LL) on lumbar vertebral contact forces during walking. A full-body OpenSim model with custom lumbar joints was developed to estimate lumbar vertebral loads for self-selected speed walking gaits of 18 healthy participants. Limited LL during walking augmented the resultant vertebral compressive and shear forces, and vertebral body compression. Excessive LL increased resultant vertebral shear forces, compression at facet joints and L5/S1 vertebral body, potentially progressing to different types of LBP.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.304 · 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