Mechanically relevant consequences of the composite laminate-like design of the abdominal wall muscles and connective tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Together, three abdominal wall muscles (external oblique, internal oblique and transversus abdominis) form a tightly bound muscular sheet that has been likened to a composite-laminate structure. Previous work has demonstrated the ability of force generated by these three muscles to be passed between one another through connective tissue linkages. Muscle fibres in each muscle are obliquely oriented with respect to its neighbouring muscles. It is proposed here is that this unique morphology of the abdominal wall muscles functions, through the application of constraining forces amongst the muscles, to increase force- and stiffness-generating capabilities. This paper presents a mathematical formulation of the stress-strain relationship for a transversely isotropic fibrous composite, and establishes a strengthening and stiffening effect when stress can be transferred between the fibrous layers. Application of empirical mechanical properties to this formulation demonstrates this effect for the abdominal wall muscles and, in greater proportion, for the anterior aponeurosis of the abdominal wall. This has implications for increasing the stiffness and passive load bearing ability of the abdominal wall muscles, and has the potential to modulate the whole muscle force-length and force-velocity relationships during contraction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".