ArticleBone & joint research2026
A clinically applicable energy-based approach for evaluating bone strength.
Article in Bone & joint research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Bone mineral density (BMD) is the diagnostic standard for osteoporosis but reflects only part of bone mass change. Testing bone yield strength is a better measure of biomechanical competence, yet requires destructive testing. We developed two clinically feasible approaches for assessing yield strength to improve osteoporosis identification: an intraoperative model based on surgical mechanical data, and a preoperative model using demographic and noninvasive measures. Methods: Axial force and torque during reaming/tapping were integrated to compute process energy in synthetic bone analogues (SBA). This computation was calibrated with finite element analysis (FEA) by modelling the same processes and aligning calculated and simulated energies. A relationship between destruction energy and yield strength was then derived in SBA. The protocol was applied to ex vivo human cancellous bone, where the computed energies were converted to predicted yield strength via the SBA mapping, and calibrated against paired uniaxial compression. Intraoperative mechanical data were then collected across multiple centres to estimate vertebral yield strength and to train a preoperative model from demographic and noninvasive variables. Results: Data were acquired for six SBA densities. Computed energies correlated with finite element energies (R² = 0.95), and the SBA energy to yield strength relationship showed excellent fit (R² = 0.99). In ex vivo human cancellous bone (n = 14), predicted yield strengths were corrected against uniaxial compression with high agreement (R² = 0.96) and validated in an independent sample (n = 6). Intraoperative data from 200 procedures supported a high-performing preoperative model (R² = 0.99). SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) indicated positive contributions from T-score and Hounsfield units (HU) and negative contributions from BMI, female sex, and age. Conclusion: This study proposes two clinically applicable models for bone yield strength prediction, circumventing destructive testing. The preoperative model enables risk stratification, while the intraoperative model provides accurate vertebral assessment.
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.