Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21718316›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2011

Sensitivity and ex vivo validation of finite element models of the domestic pig cranium.

Jen A Bright, Emily J Rayfield

Open access · greenAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Dynamic finite element modelling of the macaque mandible during a complete mastication gape cycle.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pterosaur dietary hypotheses: a review of ideas and approaches.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jen A BrightDepartment of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, UK. j.bright@bristol.ac.uk
Emily J Rayfield
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A finite element (FE) validation and sensitivity study was undertaken on a modern domestic pig cranium. Bone strain data were collected ex vivo from strain gauges, and compared with results from specimen-specific FE models. An isotropic, homogeneous model was created, then input parameters were altered to investigate model sensitivity. Heterogeneous, isotropic models investigated the effects of a constant-thickness, stiffer outer layer (representing cortical bone) atop a more compliant interior (representing cancellous bone). Loading direction and placement of strain gauges were also varied, and the use of 2D membrane elements at strain gauge locations as a method of projecting 3D model strains into the plane of the gauge was investigated. The models correctly estimate the loading conditions of the experiment, yet at some locations fail to reproduce correct principal strain magnitudes, and hence strain ratios. Principal strain orientations are predicted well. The initial model was too stiff by approximately an order of magnitude. Introducing a compliant interior reported strain magnitudes more similar to the ex vivo results without notably affecting strain orientations, ratios or contour patterns, suggesting that this simple heterogeneity was the equivalent of reducing the overall stiffness of the model. Models were generally insensitive to moderate changes in loading direction or strain gauge placement, except in the squamosal portion of the zygomatic arch. The use of membrane elements made negligible differences to the reported strains. The models therefore seem most sensitive to changes in material properties, and suggest that failure to model local heterogeneity in material properties and structure of the bone may be responsible for discrepancies between the experimental and model results. This is partially attributable to a lack of resolution in the CT scans from which the model was built, and partially due to an absence of detailed material properties data for pig cranial bone. Thus, caution is advised when using FE models to estimate absolute numerical values of breaking stress and bite force unless detailed input parameters are available. However, if the objective is to compare relative differences between models, the fact that the strain environment is replicated well means that such investigations can be robust.

Indexed as

Finite Element AnalysisModels, BiologicalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaSkullSus scrofaWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID21718316
PMCPMC3196751
OpenAlexW1603395961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.