ArticleScientific reports2025
Automated and manual model creation workflows are equally reliable for virtual mechanical testing of ovine bone and fracture healing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Virtual mechanical testing on image-based bone models (digital twins) provides subject-specific insights about the mechanical behavior of a bone during fracture healing. However, the established workflows for these tests are limited by reliance on commercial software and time-consuming manual procedures needed to create the digital twins. To overcome these barriers to clinical adoption and scalability, we have developed methods for user-independent and automated model generation. This study aimed to: (1) compare four competing methods for digital twin creation (two manual versus two automated approaches), (2) assess the influence of model-creation procedures and choice of material model (single- and dual-zone) on the virtual test results, and (3) evaluate the accuracy of the model-creation techniques through experimental validation of the results. Digital twins were generated from 59 CT scans (33 operated osteotomy fractures, 26 contralateral intact bones). Torsional rigidities were compared between modeling workflows and validated using postmortem physical mechanical test data. There were no significant differences in torsional rigidity between any of the four virtual testing groups and physical testing when a dual-zone material model was implemented for bone and callus. These results confirm that virtual mechanical testing is a reliable alternative to physical mechanical testing for assessing intact and healing long bones, with resilience to variations in digital twin creation methods. Automated model creation was substantially faster than the manual approaches, suggesting that automatic digital twin analysis is the pathway toward future clinical scalability.
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.