The non-intuitive, in-vivo behavior of aponeuroses in a unipennate muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental observations and theoretical models suggest that the loading of muscular aponeuroses is complex, causing strain patterns that are not reconcilable with the frequently assumed mechanical "in series" arrangement of aponeuroses with muscles and tendons. The purpose of this work was to measure the in-vivo longitudinal strains of the distal and proximal aponeuroses and force of the unipennate Medial Gastrocnemius (MG) muscle during locomotor activities. Sonomicrometry crystals and a force buckle transducer were implanted to measure aponeurosis strains and MG forces in the left hindlimb of four healthy female sheep while walking at different speeds and inclination angles on a motorized treadmill. The resulting aponeurosis strains versus the corresponding muscle forces resulted in a complex interaction that is not reconcilable with a mechanical "in series" arrangement of aponeuroses with either the free tendon or muscle, as has frequently been assumed when trying to determine the storage and release of mechanical energy in muscles or the stiffness and elastic modulus of in-vivo aponeurosis tissues. We conclude that the interaction of muscle tissue with aponeuroses in the sheep MG allows for elongation of the aponeuroses at low forces in the passive muscle, while elongation in the active muscle is greatly reduced possibly due to the complex shear forces and pressures produced when the muscle is activated. It is likely that the observed aponeurosis mechanics are similar in other unipennate skeletal muscles, but the current study was limited to a single muscle and therefore does not allow for such extrapolation at this time.
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".