MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2230164845 · doi:10.4236/jbise.2015.810069

Large Deformation Characterization of Porcine Thoracic Aortas: Inverse Modeling Fitting of Uniaxial and Biaxial Tests

2015· article· en· W2230164845 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Science and Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsCruciformMaterials scienceDeformation (meteorology)Finite element methodStress (linguistics)Composite materialAnisotropySquare (algebra)PlanarStructural engineeringMechanicsGeometryMathematicsOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elastic behavior of arteries is nonlinear when subjected to large deformations. In order to measure their anisotropic behavior, planar biaxial tests are often used. Typically, hooks are attached along the borders of a square sample of arterial tissue. Cruciform samples clamped with grips can also be used. The current debate on the effect of different biaxial test boundary conditions revolves around the uniformity of the stress distribution in the center of the specimen. Uniaxial tests are also commonly used due to simplicity of data analysis, but their capability to fully describe the in vivo behavior of a tissue remains to be proven. In this study, we demonstrate the use of inverse modeling to fit the material properties by taking into account the non-uniform stress distribution, and discuss the differences between the three types of tests. Square and cruciform samples were dissected from pig aortas and tested equi-biaxially. Rectangular samples were used in uniaxial testing as well. On the square samples, forces were applied on each side of edge sample attached with hooks, and strains were measured in the center using optical tracking of ink dots. On the cruciform and rectangular samples, displacements were applied on grip clamps and forces were measured on the clamps. Each type of experiment was simulated with the finite element method. The parameters of the Mooney-Rivlin constitutive model were adjusted with an optimization algorithm so that the simulation predictions fitted the experimental results. Higher stretch ratios (>1.5) were reached in the cruciform and rectangular samples than in the square samples before failure. Therefore, the nonlinear behavior of the tissue in large deformations was better captured by the cruciform biaxial test and the uniaxial test, than by the square biaxial test. Advantages of cruciform samples over square samples include: 1) higher deformation range; 2) simpler data acquisition and 3) easier attachment of sample. However, the nonuniform stress distribution in cruciform samples requires the use of inverse modeling adjustment of constitutive model parameters.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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