ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
An inter-laboratory study of the multi-dimensional behaviors of analogue lumbar spine surrogates: towards standardization in spine testing.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Experimental reproduction of lumbar spinal loading throughout activities of daily living is challenging and has historically relied on simplifications to the applied loading to pure moment testing along primary orthogonal anatomical planes. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility and crossplatform translation of multi-dimensional spinal loading protocols between two distinct biomechanical testing systems. Methods: Lumbar spinal surrogate models are used as repeatable, transportable, and inexpensive specimens to serve as standardized test articles for inter-laboratory comparison. Combined displacement-controlled Flexion-Extension (FE) and Lateral Bending (LB) trajectories and combined Axial Loading and Axial Rotation (AR) trajectories were applied to the specimens on a six-axis robotic arm and a two-axis linear-torsion testing system with custom jig. Both protocols were able to be decomposed and translated between the two testing systems, lending credibility to this method as a standardizable, reproducible process among biomechanics laboratories. Results: The results demonstrated strong agreement in combined FE-LB range of motion (ROM) and load across the two laboratory setups, with inter-laboratory ROM differences of 0.53°-0.55° (8%-10%) and peak load differences of 0.92-1.64 Nm (10%-18%) for the 3D printed surrogates. Combined AR and axial loading yielded similar behavior, with ROM differences of 0.80°-0.85° (3%-4%) and peak load differences of 0.21-0.89 Nm (1%-5%) between laboratories (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, both laboratories were able to utilize adopted methods to highlight specimen asymmetries and biomechanical responses that would be otherwise overlooked by traditional pure moment testing. Discussion: This work lays a foundation for future multidimensional testing for capturing complex biomechanical behavior of the spine.
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.