ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2024
Simulative investigation of the required level of geometrical individualization of the lumbar spines to predict fractures.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Injury mechanisms of the lumbar spine under dynamic loading are dependent on spine curvature and anatomical variation. Impact simulation with finite element (FE) models can assist the reconstruction and prediction of injuries. The objective of this study was to determine which level of individualization of a baseline FE lumbar spine model is necessary to replicate experimental responses and fracture locations in a dynamic experiment.Experimental X-rays from 26 dynamic drop tower tests were used to create three configurations of a lumbar spine model (T12 to L5): baseline, with aligned vertebrae (positioned), and with aligned and morphed vertebrae (morphed). Each model was simulated with the corresponding loading and boundary conditions from dynamic lumbar spine experiments. Force, moment, and kinematic responses were compared to the experimental data. Cosine similarity was computed to assess how well simulation responses match the experimental data. The pressure distribution within the vertebrae was used to compare fracture risk and fracture location between the different models.The positioned models replicated the injured spinal level and the fracture patterns quite well, though the morphed models provided slightly more accuracy. However, for impact reconstruction or injury prediction, the authors recommend pure positioning for whole-body models, as the gain in accuracy was relatively small, while the morphing modifications of the model require considerably higher efforts. These results improve the understanding of the application of human body models to investigate lumbar injury mechanisms with FE models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.