MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415995182 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2025.10.030

Traction Loading Human Coracohumeral Ligaments With 20 and 40 Newton Forces and Sustained Creep Deformation: A Preliminary Cadaveric Investigation

2025· article· en· W4415995182 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Hoops, Carla M James, Charles W. Nichols, Jean‐Michel Brismée, Peter Rundquist, Lee T. Atkins, Stéphane Sobczak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInnovation and Economic Development Trois Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmCreepTraction (geology)BiomechanicsDeformation (meteorology)Tractive force

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if different force magnitudes, loading cycle repetitions, and loading speeds alter creep deformation (CD) during cyclical traction loading of human cadaveric coracohumeral ligaments (CHL). METHODS: Fifteen unembalmed human cadaveric CHL specimens were assigned to 3 groups based on maximal force and loading speed: (1) 40Nslow: 40N; 0.83 mm/s; (2) 20Nslow: 20N; 0.83 mm/s; (3) 20Nfast: 20N; 2.5 mm/s. All specimens underwent 360 cycles of traction loading in a material testing system. The material testing system collected CD during loading at 60-cycle intervals. Micrometer measurements determined CD 60 minutes after loading. Friedman's ANOVA was used to compare within-group CD changes, and Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used to compare between-group CD differences. RESULTS: All groups demonstrated increased CD during 360 cycles (P < .003) without differences between groups at any 60-cycle interval (P > .05). Sixty minutes after loading, CD was 7% (±5) in the 20Nslow, 15% (±12) in the 40Nslow, and 13% (±7) in the 20Nfast groups without between-group differences (P = .353). CONCLUSION: Cyclical traction loading cadaveric CHL specimens with 20N and 40N forces increased CD without a difference between groups. Creep deformation was partially retained 60 minutes after loading. No CD differences were found using 20N loads at 2 different loading speeds.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207