A micromechanical comparison of human and porcine skin before and after preservation by freezing for medical device development
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collecting human skin samples for medical research, including developing microneedle-based medical devices, is challenging and time-consuming. Researchers rely on human skin substitutes and skin preservation techniques, such as freezing, to overcome the lack of skin availability. Porcine skin is considered the best substitute to human skin, but their mechanical resemblance has not been fully validated. We provide a direct mechanical comparison between human and porcine skin samples using a conventional mechano-analytical technique (microindentation) and a medical application (microneedle insertion), at 35% and 100% relative humidity. Human and porcine skin samples were tested immediately after surgical excision from subjects, and after one freeze-thaw cycle at -80 °C to assess the impact of freezing on their mechanical properties. The mechanical properties of fresh human and porcine skin (especially of the stratum corneum) were found to be different for bulk measurements using microindentation; and both types of skin were mechanically affected by freezing. Localized in-plane mechanical properties of skin during microneedle insertion appeared to be more comparable between human and porcine skin samples than their bulk out-of-plane mechanical properties. The results from this study serve as a reference for future mechanical tests conducted with frozen human skin and/or porcine skin as a human skin substitute.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it