ArticlePeerJ2015
The sensitivity of biological finite element models to the resolution of surface geometry: a case study of crocodilian crania.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Constraints and adaptations in crocodyliform skull evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Assessment of the mechanical role of cranial sutures in the mammalian skull: Computational biomechanical modelling of the rat skull.Journal of morphology · 2023Article
- A New Era of Morphological Investigations: Reviewing Methods for Comparative Anatomical Studies.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- The efficacy of computed tomography scanning versus surface scanning in 3D finite element analysis.PeerJ · 2022Article
- Modeling tooth enamel in FEA comparisons of skulls: Comparing common simplifications with biologically realistic models.iScience · 2021Article
- Synchrotron microtomography applied to the volumetric analysis of internal structures of Thoropa miliaris tadpoles.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- 3D Printed Organ Models with Physical Properties of Tissue and Integrated Sensors.Advanced materials technologies · 2018Article
- Article
- Comparative cephalopod shell strength and the role of septum morphology on stress distribution.PeerJ · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of finite element analysis (FEA) in biomechanical investigations depends upon understanding the influence of model assumptions. In producing finite element models, surface mesh resolution is influenced by the resolution of input geometry, and influences the resolution of the ensuing solid mesh used for numerical analysis. Despite a large number of studies incorporating sensitivity studies of the effects of solid mesh resolution there has not yet been any investigation into the effect of surface mesh resolution upon results in a comparative context. Here we use a dataset of crocodile crania to examine the effects of surface resolution on FEA results in a comparative context. Seven high-resolution surface meshes were each down-sampled to varying degrees while keeping the resulting number of solid elements constant. These models were then subjected to bite and shake load cases using finite element analysis. The results show that incremental decreases in surface resolution can result in fluctuations in strain magnitudes, but that it is possible to obtain stable results using lower resolution surface in a comparative FEA study. As surface mesh resolution links input geometry with the resulting solid mesh, the implication of these results is that low resolution input geometry and solid meshes may provide valid results in a comparative context.
Indexed as
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.