MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uncertainties in indentation testing of articular cartilage: A fibril-reinforced poroviscoelastic study

2007· article· en· W1964997703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Engineering & Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndentationMaterials scienceIsotropyCartilageScalingModulusElastic modulusCompression (physics)Composite materialAnisotropyBiomedical engineeringGeometryOpticsMathematicsAnatomyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indentation testing provides a quantitative technique to evaluate mechanical characteristics of articular cartilage in situ and in vivo. Traditionally, analytical solutions proposed by Hayes et al. [Hayes WC, Keer LM, Herrmann G, Mockros LF. A mathematical analysis for indentation tests of articular cartilage. J Biomech 1972;5(5):541-51] have been applied for the analysis of indentation measurements, and due to their practicality, they have been used for clinical diagnostics. Using this approach, the elastic modulus is derived based on scaling factors which depend on cartilage thickness, indenter radius and Poisson's ratio, and the cartilage model is assumed isotropic and homogeneous, thereby greatly simplifying the true tissue characteristics. The aim was to investigate the validity of previous model assumptions for indentation testing. Fibril-reinforced poroviscoelastic cartilage (FRPVE) model including realistic tissue characteristics was used to simulate indentation tests. The effects of cartilage inhomogeneity, anisotropy, and indentation velocity on the indentation response were evaluated, and scaling factors from the FRPVE analysis were derived. Subsequently, the validity of scaling factors obtained using the traditional and the FRPVE analyses was studied by calculating indentation moduli for bovine cartilage samples, and comparing these values to those obtained experimentally in unconfined compression testing. Collagen architecture and compression velocity had significant effects on the indentation response. Isotropic elastic analysis gave significantly higher (30-107%) Young's moduli for indentation compared to unconfined compression testing. Modification of Hayes' scaling factors by accounting for cartilage inhomogeneity and anisotropy improved the agreement of Young's moduli obtained for the two test configurations by 14-28%. These results emphasize the importance of realistic cartilage structure and mechanical properties in the indentation analysis. Although it is not possible to fully describe tissue inhomogeneity and anisotropy with just the Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio, accounting for inhomogeneity and anisotropy in these two parameters may help to improve the in vivo characterization of tissue using arthroscopic indentation testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it