Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41053756›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025

A collaborative approach of finite element method and machine learning algorithms for biomechanical analysis of implants used in tibial shaft fractures.

Halil Burak Mutu

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Halil Burak MutuDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, 60250, Türkiye. halilburak.mutu@gop.edu.tr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTibial fractures are among the most common complex orthopedic injuries. The mechanical strength and biomaterial properties of implants used in the treatment of such fractures directly affect the healing process. In this study, the mechanical effects of different implant designs and biomaterials on obliquely fractured tibia were analyzed. In addition, it was aimed to evaluate the data obtained from finite element analysis (FEA) with machine learning (ML) algorithms.

methodsSeven implant models for tibial shaft fractures were analyzed using static structural simulations in Ansys Workbench. Implants and cortical screws were made of Ti–6Al–4 V alloy or 316 L stainless steel (SS), and axial loads of 600, 800, and 1000 N simulated single-leg stance. A dataset of 1008 points, including maximum stress and total displacement, was generated and used to train Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Decision Tree (DT) models in WEKA.

resultsThe mechanical behaviors of different implant and biomaterial combinations were compared, and the maximum stress value in implants with 316 L SS material properties was higher than the maximum stress value in Ti-6Al-4 V alloy implants. When the total displacement values ​​in the tibia fracture region were examined, 316 L SS implants gave better results. In the machine learning estimations, the SVM model outperformed the MLP and DT algorithms. For maximum stress prediction, SVM achieved an mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.24 and 0.41 for the training and test sets, respectively, while MLP and DT showed higher errors (3.27/4.02 and 10.99/14.90, respectively). Similarly, for total displacement prediction, SVM showed the lowest errors with MAE values of 0.0003 and 0.0015 for the training and test sets, whereas MLP and DT had higher MAE (0.0032/0.0040 and 0.0058/0.0072, respectively).

conclusionThis study evaluated the effects of different implant designs and biomaterials on oblique tibial fractures and demonstrated that finite element results can be accurately predicted using machine learning models. The SVM algorithm showed superior performance, with prediction errors of approximately 0.24–0.41% MAE and 0.27–0.49% root mean square error (RMSE) for maximum stress, and 0.03–0.15% MAE and 0.03–0.23% RMSE for total displacement in the training and test sets, respectively. In comparison, MLP and DT exhibited higher errors. These findings highlight the potential of data-driven approaches in biomechanical analyses and their contribution to developing clinical decision support systems.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisMachine LearningTibial FracturesAlgorithmsAlloysBiomechanical PhenomenaBone ScrewsDecision TreesHumansMultilayer PerceptronsPredictive Learning ModelsStress, MechanicalSupport Vector MachineTitaniumAlloysTitaniumBiomechanicFinite element analysisMachine learningTibial shaft fracture

Identifiers

PMID41053756
PMCPMC12502560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.