ArticlePolymer testing2010
In situ Materials Characterization using the Tissue Diagnostic Instrument.
Article in Polymer testing, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical measurements of bone tissue mechanical behavior using reference point indentation.Clinical reviews in bone and mineral metabolism · 2018Article
- Matrix metalloproteinase-13 is required for osteocytic perilacunar remodeling and maintains bone fracture resistance.Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research · 2012Article
- Local tissue properties of human osteoarthritic cartilage correlate with magnetic resonance T(1) rho relaxation times.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
An understanding of the mechanical behavior of polymers is critical towards the design, implementation, and quality control of such materials. Yet experiments and method for the characterization of material properties of polymers remain challenging due the need to reconcile constitutive assumptions with experimental conditions. Well-established modes of mechanical testing, such as unconfined compression or uniaxial tension, require samples with specific geometries and carefully controlled orientations. Moreover, producing specimens that conform to such specifications often requires a considerable amount of sample material. In this study we validate a micromechanical indentation device, the Tissue Diagnostic Instrument (TDI), which implements a cyclic indentation method to determine the material properties of polymers and elastomeric materials. Measurements using the TDI require little or no sample preparation, and they allow the testing of sample materials in situ. In order to validate the use of the TDI, we compared measurements of modulus determined by the TDI to those obtained by unconfined compression tests and by uniaxial tension tests within the limit of small stresses and strains. The results show that the TDI measurements were significantly correlated with both unconfined compression (p<0.001; r(2) = 0.92) and uniaxial tension tests (p<0.001; r(2)=0.87). Moreover, the measurements across all three modes of testing were statistically indistinguishable from each other (p=0.92; ANOVA) and demonstrate that TDI measurements can provide a surrogate for the conventional methods of mechanical characterization.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.