Computational Modeling and Mechanical Testing of Calcaneus Fracture Plates: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article surveys all computational and experimental investigations that varied plate and/or screw variables to evaluate the mechanical effect on calcaneus (i.e., heel bone) fracture plates (CFPs). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science archives were examined for studies published on any date and in any language that (i) mechanically characterized the effect of changing plate and/or screw variables on CFP performance, rather than just comparing or augmenting CFPs with other types of implants and (ii) only analyzed calcaneus fractures, rather than other co-injuries of the ankle or foot. The 36 eligible studies evaluated various plate variables (i.e., geometry, hole type, number) and screw variables (i.e., geometry, number, distribution, angle), but not plate position or material. The studies reported engineering outcome metrics like (i) interfragmentary motion (0-11.24 mm; 0-1.20 deg), (ii) bone (2.6-502.6 MPa), plate (11.4-1084.0 MPa), or screw (19.7-524.5 MPa) stress, (iii) bone stress under the plate to evaluate "stress shielding" (0-50.0 MPa), (iv) the number of loading cycles to failure (1000-89,250 cycles), (v) overall stiffness (22-5108 N/mm), or (vi) failure strength (100-7867 N). This review also discusses future work for implant variables, bone variables, study methodologies, and clinical items, as well as recommending a particular CFP configuration for maximal mechanical stability. This review will help biomedical engineers and orthopedic surgeons to effectively design, analyze, or use CFPs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".