ArticleScientific reports2025
Computational analysis of L4-L5 interspinous process devices and interbody fusion spacers using ceramic and polymeric materials via finite element modeling and artificial intelligence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Standalone interspinous process devices for lumbar spinal stenosis: a critical literature review.BMC surgery · 2026Review
- A Review of Finite Element Analysis in Spine Surgery Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Advances in biomechanical modeling of lumbar spine diseases and tumors: gaps, opportunities, and AI integration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Long-term Performance and Durability of Biomaterials and Implant Designs in Total Joint Arthroplasty and Spinal Fusion.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis involves pathological narrowing of the spinal canal, whereas disc degeneration refers to the progressive deterioration of intervertebral disc structure and function. Interspinous process devices (ISPs) are commonly used to manage spinal stenosis, whereas anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) spacers are employed for conditions such as spondylolisthesis and disc degeneration. Although titanium remains the standard material for spinal devices, ceramics and polymers have emerged as promising alternatives because of their favorable biomechanical and biological properties. This study investigated the biomechanical performance of ceramic- and polymer-based materials in ALIF and ISP devices via finite element method (FEM) simulations and further explored the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) models to predict biomechanical responses on the basis of material characteristics. In the first phase, FEM models were used to evaluate spinal devices made of ceramics (zirconia, alumina), ceramic composites (ZTA, ATZ), polymers (PEEK, PEKK, PMMA), fiber-reinforced composites (CFR-PEEK, GFR-PEEK), and hydroxyapatite-reinforced PEEK (HA-PEEK) under physiological loading in both normal and osteoporotic bone conditions. In the second phase, eighteen machine learning regression models were trained on FEM-generated datasets to predict key biomechanical metrics, including stress, strain, and range of motion (ROM). The results demonstrated that for ISP devices, stiffer materials such as ceramics and CFR-PEEK 60% reduced stress and strain in adjacent vertebrae compared with softer polymers, thereby lowering fracture risk. Conversely, for ALIF spacers, more compliant materials, such as PEEK and PEKK, offered better performance in osteoporotic spines because of improved load-sharing capabilities. Among AI models, multilayer perceptron (MLP), support vector regression (SVR), and XGBoost achieved high predictive accuracy (R
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.