ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Biomechanical assessment of vertebral fracture risk incorporating the effect of paraspinal muscles.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vertebral fractures are a major public health issue worldwide. Current assessment standards, like volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), are limited because they overlook the critical biomechanical role of paraspinal muscles. This study directly compares quasistatic and musculoskeletal models on their performance in estimating the load-to-strength ratio (LSR) and determines their efficacy in vertebral fracture risk assessment. Our case-control study included 70 subjects (18 with vertebral fractures and 52 controls) who underwent quantitative CT for vBMD measurement and finite element analysis, which yielded biomechanical CT (BCT) to determine vertebral strength. The compressive loads on L2 vertebra under three postures (30°, 45°, and 90° flexion) were computed and LSRs were calculated. Group differences in vBMD, BCT strength, muscle density, and LSRs were compared, while their diagnostic performance was evaluated. For fracture risk assessment, LSRs demonstrated higher performance (AUC: 0.89–0.94) vs. vBMD (AUC: 0.71), and certain improvements over BCT-strength. Quasistatic and musculoskeletal models produced similar loads at 30° and 45°, while musculoskeletal model predicted markedly higher loads at 90° (+ 48.4%). Overall, incorporating paraspinal muscle-related loading into LSR improves fracture risk assessment beyond vBMD. Model choice becomes more influential under high-flexion conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41803603What 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.