Measuring the elastic modulus of<i>ex vivo</i>small tissue samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, several methods have been proposed to image tissue elasticity based on imaging methods collectively called elastography. While progress in developing these systems has been rapid, the basic understanding of tissue properties to interpret elastography images is generally lacking. To address this limitation, we developed a system to measure the Young's modulus of small soft tissue specimens. This system was designed to accommodate biological soft tissue constraints such as sample size, geometry imperfection and heterogeneity. The measurement technique consists of indenting an unconfined small block of tissue while measuring the resulting force. We show that the measured force-displacement slope of such a geometry can be transformed to the tissue Young's modulus via a conversion factor related to the sample's geometry and boundary conditions using finite element analysis. We also demonstrate another measurement technique for tissue elasticity based on quasi-static magnetic resonance elastography in which a tissue specimen encased in a gelatine-agarose block undergoes cyclical compression with resulting displacements measured using a phase contrast MRI technique. The tissue Young's modulus is then reconstructed from the measured displacements using an inversion technique. Finally, preliminary elasticity measurement results of various breast tissues are presented and discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".