ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
A collaborative approach of finite element method and machine learning algorithms for biomechanical analysis of implants used in tibial shaft fractures.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closing the Loop on the Cocktail Party Effect: From Attention Decoding to Neuro-Steered Selective Hearing.Biology · 2026Article
- Correction: A collaborative approach of finite element method and machine learning algorithms for biomechanical analysis of implants used in tibial shaft fractures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Three Acetabular Plate Designs with Different Bridge Geometries.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.