MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480589279 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2016.1214270

A novel micro-to-macro approach for cardiac tissue mechanics

2016· article· en· W2480589279 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyyed Mohammad Hassan Haddad, Abbas Samani

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMacroComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMechanicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For studying cardiac mechanics, hyperelastic anisotropic computational models have been developed which require the tissue anisotropic and hyperelastic parameters. These parameters are obtained by tissue samples mechanically testing. The validity of such parameters are limited to the specific tissue sample only. They are not adaptable for pathological tissues commonly associated with tissue microstructure alterations. To investigate cardiac tissue mechanics, a novel approach is proposed to model hyperelasticity and anisotropy. This approach is adaptable to various tissue microstructural constituent's distributions in normal and pathological tissues. In this approach, the tissue is idealized as composite material consisting of cardiomyocytes distributed in extracellular matrix (ECM). The major myocardial tissue constituents are mitochondria and myofibrils while the main ECM's constituents are collagen fibers and fibroblasts. Accordingly, finite element simulations of uniaxial and equibiaxial tests of normal and infarcted tissue samples with known amounts of these constituents were conducted, leading to corresponding tissue stress-strain data that were fitted to anisotropic/hyperelastic models. The models were validated where they showed good agreement characterized by maximum average stress-strain errors of 16.17 and 10.01% for normal and infarcted cardiac tissue, respectively. This demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed models in accurate characterization of healthy and pathological cardiac tissues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207