MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128595983 · doi:10.1115/1.4050036

Quasi-Linear Viscoelastic Characterization of Soft Tissue-Mimicking Materials

2021· article· en· W3128595983 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamed Helisaz, Mattia Bacca, Mu Chiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOgdenViscoelasticityElastic modulusNonlinear systemCharacterization (materials science)Linear elasticityMaterials scienceRelaxation (psychology)Stress relaxationMaterial propertiesElasticity (physics)MechanicsStatistical physicsPhysicsComposite materialNanotechnologyThermodynamicsFinite element methodCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel method based on the quasi-linear viscoelastic (QLV) theory to describe the time-dependent behavior of soft materials. Unlike previous methods for deriving QLV parameters, we characterize the elastic and viscous behavior of materials separately by using two different sets of experiments. To model the nonlinear elastic behavior, we fit the elastic stress response with a one-term Ogden model. Then, we model the relaxation behavior with a Prony series to compare the stress relaxation of the material at different timescales. This new method allows us to characterize materials with narrow confidence intervals (high accuracy), independently from the loading conditions. We validate our model using samples made of phantom materials that mimic normal and cancerous prostate tissues in terms of Young's modulus. Our model is shown to distinguish materials with similar elastic (viscous) properties but different viscous (elastic) properties. Drawing a precise distinction between the phantoms, this method could be useful for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis; but significant clinical studies will be needed in the future.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207