↓ Skip to main content

The paradox of Wolff’s theories

Overview of attention for article published in Irish Journal of Medical Science, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
The paradox of Wolff’s theories
Published in
Irish Journal of Medical Science, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11845-014-1070-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Hammer

Abstract

The upper femur has long held a fascination for both clinicians and bioengineers as it contains two trabecular columns obviously related to its function. In this respect two theories as to the formation of these columns have developed, both associated with Wolff: the Trajectorial Theory, which relates mainly to the passage of forces through the cancellous bone of the upper femur, and Wolff's Law of bone formation, which describes the bone's reaction to these forces and relates to bone in general. The two concepts nevertheless are often used synonymously. The Trajectorial Theory propounds that these cancellous structures in the femoral neck are due to both tension and compression forces, while modern day concepts of Wolff's Law only acknowledge the action of compression forces: and herein lies the paradox. The Trajectorial Theory and Wolff's Law, when applied to the upper femur, are mutually exclusive. The evidence, anatomical and physiological, indicates that bone forms within the femoral neck solely under the influence of compression forces. This would indicate that the Trajectorial Theory is not appropriate for this region. An alternative conceptual way of looking at this region is presented which eliminates this theory and resolves the paradox.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Engineering 10 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 17%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,751,741
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#921
of 1,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,884
of 308,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Irish Journal of Medical Science
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.