ArticleJOR spine2025
The Helical Compliance Vector: Utility for Quantifying Spinal Mechanics.
Article in JOR spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical differences between occipital plate and modified C1 lateral mass screw in the treatment of complex craniocervical malformations: a finite element analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: This study introduces the helical compliance vector (HCV), a novel measuring parameter that quantifies the orientation and magnitude of joint compliance (inverse of stiffness) by integrating kinetic and kinematic data within the helical axis framework. The HCV provides high temporal and spatial resolution, enabling detailed analysis of compliance and stiffness throughout motion, surpassing the limitations of traditional static or end-range metrics, which often fail to capture transient variations in stiffness and multiplanar interactions that occur during movement. Methods: Eight cadaveric lumbar segments (L4-L5) were tested under pure moment loading (up to 7 Nm) in lateral bending, flexion/extension, axial rotation, and a multiplanar (Kemp's) test. Results: The findings revealed distinct moment-specific compliance trends, with the highest compliance during low-moment flexion and the lowest during axial rotation. The Kemp's test demonstrated the HCV's ability to capture complex coupled motions, combining lateral bending and axial rotation motion. Across all loading scenarios, compliance decreased significantly near the end range of motion, illustrating its evolution throughout motion. Conclusion: By simultaneously characterizing the magnitude and directionality of compliance, the HCV framework offers a comprehensive, high-resolution approach to understanding joint mechanics. This method establishes a foundation for investigating multiplanar joint behaviors and can be extended to in vivo applications using advanced imaging and musculoskeletal modeling technologies.
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.