Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Animals Used in Disc Research to Human Lumbar Disc Geometry

O’Connell, Grace D., Vresilovic, Edward J., Elliott, Dawn M.·2007·Spine

Abstract

In Brief Study Design. Measurement and normalization of disc geometry parameters for several animal models used in disc research. Objectives. To compare normalized values of disc geometry to the human disc geometry to aid in the selection and interpretation of animal model studies. Summary of Background Data. Animal models are widely used to study intervertebral disc degeneration and to evaluate disc treatment methods because of the availability of the tissue, the decreased variability between subjects compared with humans, and the feasibility to perform in vivo experiments. There is a general lack of comparative data with respect to the human disc analog for animal models. Methods. The disc height, lateral width, AP width, area, and the nucleus pulposus lateral width, AP width, area, and centroid offset were all measured and normalized by 2 scaling factors, lateral width and disc area, for comparison to human. Results. The species studied were ranked according to the average percent deviation of the normalized disc height, AP width and nucleus pulposus area from human geometry as: mouse lumbar (12%), rat lumbar (15%), mouse tail (18%), baboon (19%), bovine tail (22%), rabbit (26%), sheep (31%), and rat tail (46%). Conclusions. This paper provides a reference to compare disc geometries of experimental animal models to the human lumbar disc, to aid both in interpretation of and in planning for experimental disc research, and to provide normalized disc geometry parameters for computational models. Disc and nucleus geometry of animal models used to study disc degeneration was measured. Parameters were normalized for comparison to the human lumbar disc. The species were ranked according to the deviation from human as: mouse lumbar (closest), rat lumbar, mouse tail, baboon, bovine tail, rabbit, sheep, and rat tail (farthest).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.brs.0000253961.40910.c1

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
O’Connell, G. D., Vresilovic, E. J., & Elliott, D. M.
Venue
Spine
Published
2007-02
Volume
32
Issue
3
Pages
328-333
ISSN
0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045200773
Cited by
329
References
9
FWCI
7.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Animals Used in Disc Research to Human Lumbar Disc Geometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.brs.0000253961.40910.c1
The paper
O’Connell, G. D., Vresilovic, E. J., & Elliott, D. M. (2007). Comparison of Animals Used in Disc Research to Human Lumbar Disc Geometry. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000253961.40910.c1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.