MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151139080 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249601

Modelling extracellular matrix and cellular contributions to whole muscle mechanics

2021· article· en· W3151139080 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan N. Konno, Nilima Nigam, James M. Wakeling

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle Physiology and Disorders
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMuscle tissueMyosinExtracellular matrixSkeletal muscleMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringConnective tissueMuscle contractionElastic modulusBiological systemBiophysicsAnatomyChemistryComposite materialBiologyPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skeletal muscle tissue has a highly complex and heterogeneous structure comprising several physical length scales. In the simplest model of muscle tissue, it can be represented as a one dimensional nonlinear spring in the direction of muscle fibres. However, at the finest level, muscle tissue includes a complex network of collagen fibres, actin and myosin proteins, and other cellular materials. This study shall derive an intermediate physical model which encapsulates the major contributions of the muscle components to the elastic response apart from activation-related along-fibre responses. The micro-mechanical factors in skeletal muscle tissue (eg. connective tissue, fluid, and fibres) can be homogenized into one material aggregate that will capture the behaviour of the combination of material components. In order to do this, the corresponding volume fractions for each type of material need to be determined by comparing the stress-strain relationship for a volume containing each material. This results in a model that accounts for the micro-mechanical features found in muscle and can therefore be used to analyze effects of neuro-muscular diseases such as cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophies. The purpose of this study is to construct a model of muscle tissue that, through choosing the correct material parameters based on experimental data, will accurately capture the mechanical behaviour of whole muscle. This model is then used to look at the impacts of the bulk modulus and material parameters on muscle deformation and strain energy-density distributions.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMuscle Physiology and DisordersFrench-language works237,207