MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069043226 · doi:10.1115/1.4023369

A Feature-Based Morphing Methodology for Computationally Modeled Biological Structures Applied to Left Atrial Fiber Directions

2013· article· en· W2069043226 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessandro Satriano, Chiara Bellini, Edward J. Vigmond, Elena S. Di Martino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsFinite element methodDiscretizationIsotropyMorphingAnisotropyHyperelastic materialBiological systemComponent (thermodynamics)VoxelComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisStructural engineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To properly simulate the behavior of biological structures through computer modeling, there exists a need to describe parameters that vary locally. These parameters can be obtained either from literature or from experimental data and they are often assigned to regions in the model as lumped values. Furthermore, parameter values may be obtained on a representative case and may not be available for each specific modeled organ. We describe a semiautomated technique to assign detailed maps of local tissue properties to a computational model of a biological structure. We applied the method to the left atrium of the heart. The orientation of myocytes in the tissue as obtained from histologic analysis was transferred to the 3D model of a porcine left atrium. Finite element method (FEM) dynamic simulations were performed by using an isotropic, neo-Hookean, constitutive model first, then adding an anisotropic, cardiomyocyte oriented, Fung-type component. Results showed higher stresses for the anisotropic material model corresponding to lower stretches in the cardiomyocyte directions. The same methodology can be applied to transfer any map of parameters onto a discretized finite element model.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207