Ultrastructural response of tendon to excessive level or duration of tensile load supports that collagen fibrils are mechanically continuous
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basic collagen fibril structure of tendons continues to be debated in the literature. Some studies have proposed that collagen fibrils are longitudinally discontinuous, with the load-bearing ability of tendon dependent on interfibrillar shear strength. Other evidence indicates that collagen fibrils are probably structurally continuous, running uninterrupted from osteotendinous to myotendinous junction. In this study we explored the question of collagen fibril continuity in tendon by examining fibril response to tendon loading. Tendons were subjected to high stress and/or long duration tensile loading routines, after which we examined the ultrastructure of the tendons using differential scanning calorimetry and scanning electron microscopy, comparing the results from the loaded tendons to control samples taken from the same tendons prior to loading. Our results show that under ramp loading, collagen fibril damage begins near the end of the linear region in the stress-strain response (i.e., near the yield point). When tendons are allowed to gradually elongate under static load, tendon rupture is caused by failure of collagen fibrils, not uncontrolled slippage between fibrils. Our findings indicate that the collagen fibrils of tendon are at least sufficiently long to be mechanically continuous, meaning that tensile failure of tendon does not occur as the result of uncontrolled slippage between fibrils, but by failure of the fibrils themselves.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".