In-vivo and in-vitro environments affect the storage and release of energy in tendons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding tendon mechanical properties, such as stiffness and hysteresis, can provide insights into injury mechanisms. This research addresses the inconsistency of previously reported in-vivo and in-vitro tendon hysteresis properties. Although limited, our preliminary findings suggest that in-vivo hystereses (Mean ± SD; 55% ± 9%) are greater than in-vitro hystereses (14% ± 1%) when directly comparing the same tendon for the same loading conditions in a sheep model in-vivo versus within 24 h post-mortem . Overall, it therefore appears that the tendon mechanical properties are affected by the testing environment, possibly related to differences in muscle-tendon interactions and fluid flow experienced in-vivo versus in-vitro . This communication advocates for more detailed investigations into the mechanisms resulting in the reported differences in tendon behaviour. Overall, such knowledge contributes to our understanding of tendon function towards improving modelling and clinical interventions, bridging the gap between in-vivo and in-vitro observations and enhancing the translational relevance of biomechanical studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".