MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388524291 · doi:10.3390/ma16227095

Simulating and Predicting the Mechanical Behavior of Electrospun Scaffolds for Cardiac Patches Fabrication

2023· article· en· W4388524291 on OpenAlexafffund
Elli Gkouti, Aleksander Czekanski, Ahmed AlAttar

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYork University
KeywordsHyperelastic materialMaterials scienceElectrospinningFinite element methodViscoelasticityDeformation (meteorology)FabricationStress relaxationComposite materialStress (linguistics)Structural engineeringPolymerCreepEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fabricating helical scaffolds using electrospinning is a common approach for cardiac implantation, aiming to achieve properties similar to native tissue. However, this process requires multiple experimental attempts to select suitable electrospun properties and validate resulting mechanical responses. To overcome the time and cost constraints associated with this iterative procedure, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) can be applied using stable hyperelastic and viscoelastic models that describe the response of electrospun scaffolds under different conditions. In this study, we aim to create accurate simulations of the viscoelastic behavior of electrospun helical scaffolds. We fabricated helical fibers from Poly (3-caprolactone) (PCL) using the electrospinning process to achieve this. The electrospun samples were subjected to uniaxial deformation, and their response was modelled using existing hyperelastic and stress relaxation models. The simulations were built on experimental data for specific deformation speed and maximum strain conditions. The FEM results were evaluated by accounting for the stress-softening phenomenon, which significantly impacted the models. The electrospun scaffolds' predictions were performed in other than the initial experimental conditions to verify our simulations' accuracy and reliability.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207