Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34227653›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2022

A Direct Comparison of Node and Element-Based Finite Element Modeling Approaches to Study Tissue Growth.

Danielle Howe, Nikhil N Dixit, Katherine R Saul, Matthew B Fisher

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 92% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Danielle HoweJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Carolina State University & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Raleigh, NC 27695; Comparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Nikhil N DixitDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Katherine R SaulDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University, 3162 Engineering Building III, 1840 Entrepreneur Dr, CB 7910, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Matthew B FisherJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Carolina State University & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 4130 Engineering Building III, 1840 Entrepreneur Drive, CB 7115, Raleigh, NC 27695; Comparative Medicine Institute, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695; Department of Orthopaedics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599.
North Carolina State University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Tech-DevelopmentP2CHD065690 · NICHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DELP, SCOTT L · 2015 to 2019
$5.4M
Sex- and Age-dependent ACL Function in the Growing Knee JointR01AR071985 · NIAMS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI Matthew B Fisher · 2018 to 2026
$3.6M
Effect of Age, Sex, and Injury on Regional Stresses and Resulting Growth of the Anterior Cruciate LigamentF31AR077997 · NIAMS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI HOWE, DANIELLE · 2021 to 2022
$54k
NIAMS NIH HHS F31 AR077997NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR071985NIAMS NIH HHS R01AR071985NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD065690NICHD NIH HHS P2CHD065690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Finite element analysis is a useful tool to model growth of biological tissues and predict how growth can be impacted by stimuli. Previous work has simulated growth using node-based or element-based approaches, and this implementation choice may influence predicted growth, irrespective of the applied growth model. This study directly compared node-based and element-based approaches to understand the isolated impact of implementation method on growth predictions by simulating growth of a bone rudiment geometry, and determined what conditions produce similar results between the approaches. We used a previously reported node-based approach implemented via thermal expansion and an element-based approach implemented via osmotic swelling, and we derived a mathematical relationship to relate the growth resulting from these approaches. We found that material properties (modulus) affected growth in the element-based approach, with growth completely restricted for high modulus values relative to the growth stimulus, and no restriction for low modulus values. The node-based approach was unaffected by modulus. Node- and element-based approaches matched marginally better when the conversion coefficient to relate the approaches was optimized based on the results of initial simulations, rather than using the theoretically predicted conversion coefficient (median difference in node position 0.042 cm versus 0.052 cm, respectively). In summary, we illustrate here the importance of the choice of implementation approach for modeling growth, provide a framework for converting models between implementation approaches, and highlight important considerations for comparing results in prior work and developing new models of tissue growth.

Indexed as

Bone and BonesModels, BiologicalFinite Element Analysis

Identifiers

PMID34227653
PMCPMC8420794
OpenAlexW3181379386

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.