ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2019
Model First and Ask Questions Later: Confessions of a Reformed Experimentalist.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal dynamics of angiogenesis: the emerging role of mechanoregulated pathways.Biochemical Society transactions · 2025Review
- Continuum Growth Mechanics: Reconciling Two Common Frameworks.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2024Article
- Identifiability of tissue material parameters from uniaxial tests using multi-start optimization.Acta biomaterialia · 2021Article
- Computational modeling for cardiovascular tissue engineering: the importance of including cell behavior in growth and remodeling algorithms.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2020Review
- Numerical Simulation of Electroactive Hydrogels for Cartilage-Tissue Engineering.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This paper is an invited perspective written in association with the awarding of the 2018 American Society of Mechanical Engineers Van C. Mow Medal. Inspired by Professor Mow's collaboration with Professor Michael Lai and the role mathematical modeling played in their work on cartilage biomechanics, this article uses our group's work on myocardial infarct healing as an example of the potential value of models in modern experimental biomechanics. Focusing more on the thought process and lessons learned from our studies on infarct mechanics than on the details of the science, this article argues that the complexity of current research questions and the wealth of information already available about almost any cell, tissue, or organ should change how we approach problems and design experiments. In particular, this paper proposes that constructing a mathematical or computational model is now in many cases a critical prerequisite to designing scientifically useful, informative experiments.
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.