ArticleJournal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials2019
Multi-modal characterization of polymeric gels to determine the influence of testing method on observed elastic modulus.
Article in Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 2019. 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.
- Multichannel soft microfluidic force sensors: design, characterization, and application in laparoscopy.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2026Article
- A cost-effective laboratory device for single slow micro compression testing of soft materials in the small-strain region.HardwareX · 2026Article
- Capillarity-induced fold localization in film-substrate systems.Interface focus · 2025Article
- Design and characterization of an optical phantom for mesoscopic multimodal fluorescence lifetime imaging and optical coherence elastography.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Viscoelastic Properties of Bioprinted Alginate Microbeads Compared to Their Bulk Hydrogel Analogs.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2023Article
- Nanoindentation Response of 3D Printed PEGDA Hydrogels in a Hydrated Environment.ACS applied polymer materials · 2023Article
- Complex Material Properties of Gel-Amin: A Transparent and Ionically Conductive Hydrogel for Neural Tissue Engineering.Cells, tissues, organs · 2023Article
- Toward a better modulus at shallow indentations-Enhanced tip and sample characterization for quantitative atomic force microscopy.Microscopy research and technique · 2023Article
- Mechanical Characterization of Synthetic Gels for Creation of Surrogate Hands Subjected to Low-Velocity Impacts.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Demand for materials that mechanically replicate native tissue has driven development and characterization of various new biomaterials. However, a consequence of materials and characterization technique diversity is a lack of consensus within the field, with no clear way to compare values measured via different modalities. This likely contributes to the difficulty in replicating findings across the research community; recent evidence suggests that different modalities do not yield the same mechanical measurements within a material, and direct comparisons cannot be made across different testing platforms. Herein, we examine whether "material properties" are characterization modality-specific by analyzing the elastic moduli determined by five typical biomaterial mechanical characterization techniques: unconfined-compression, tensiometry, rheometry, and micro-indentation at the macroscopic level, and microscopically using nanoindentation. These analyses were performed in two different polymeric gels frequently used for biological applications, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and agarose. Each was fabricated to span a range of moduli, from physiologic to supraphysiologic values. All five techniques identified the same overall trend within each material group, supporting their ability to appreciate relative moduli differences. However, significant differences were found across modalities, illustrating a difference in absolute moduli values, and thereby precluding direct comparison of measurements from different characterization modalities. These observed differences may depend on material compliance, viscoelasticity, and microstructure. While determining the underlying mechanism(s) of these differences was beyond the scope of this work, these results demonstrate how each modality affects the measured moduli of the same material, and the sensitivity of each modality to changes in sample material composition.
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.