Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30703738›Full record

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.

David M Kingsley, Caitlin H McCleery, Christopher D L Johnson, Michael T K Bramson, Deniz Rende, Ryan J Gilbert, David T Corr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

David M KingsleyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Kingsd@rpi.edu.
Caitlin H McCleeryDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: McClec@rpi.edu.
Christopher D L JohnsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Johnsc10@rpi.edu.
Michael T K BramsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Bramsm@rpi.edu.
Deniz RendeCenter for Materials, Devices and Integrated Systems, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Rended3@rpi.edu.
Ryan J GilbertDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Gilber2@rpi.edu.
David T CorrDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 Eighth St., Troy, NY 12180, USA. Electronic address: Corrd@rpi.edu.

Funding

Role of tumor heterogeneity on receptor engagementR01CA207725 · NCI · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI BARROSO, MARGARIDA, CORR, DAVID THOMAS · 2017 to 2021
$3.0M
Enhanced Neuroprotection Following Acute SCI Using Fibrous MaterialsR01NS092754 · NINDS · RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE · PI GILBERT, RYAN J. · 2015 to 2019
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207725NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS092754
6 · The paper itself

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

Elastic ModulusMaterials TestingCompressive StrengthDimethylpolysiloxanesGelsTensile StrengthbaysilonDimethylpolysiloxanesGels

Identifiers

PMID30703738
PMCPMC6387847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.