Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35049575›Full record

ArticleGels (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Soft-Tissue-Mimicking Using Hydrogels for the Development of Phantoms.

Aitor Tejo-Otero, Felip Fenollosa-Artés, Isabel Achaerandio, Sergi Rey-Vinolas, Irene Buj-Corral, Miguel Ángel Mateos-Timoneda, Elisabeth Engel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Edible Scaffolds for Cultivated Meat Production.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Bevel-Tip Needle Deflection Modeling, Simulation, and Validation in Multi-Layer Tissues.IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation : ICRA : [proceedings]. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation · 2024
    Article
  20. 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.

Aitor Tejo-OteroCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Carrer de Llorens i Artigas, 12, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Felip Fenollosa-ArtésCentre CIM, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (CIM UPC), Carrer de Llorens i Artigas, 12, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4284-9649
Isabel AchaerandioDepartment d'Enginyeria Agroalimentària i Biotecnologia, Escola d'Enginyeria Agroalimentària i de Biosistemes de Barcelona, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Carrer Esteve Terradas, 8, 08860 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0387-6118
Sergi Rey-VinolasInstitute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), c/Baldiri Reixac 15-21, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.
Irene Buj-CorralDepartament of Mechanical Engineering, Barcelona School of Industrial Engineering (ETSEIB), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal, 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4058-4162
Miguel Ángel Mateos-TimonedaInstitute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), c/Baldiri Reixac 15-21, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7657-1414
Elisabeth EngelInstitute for Bioengineering of Catalonia (IBEC), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology (BIST), c/Baldiri Reixac 15-21, 08028 Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the currently available materials and technologies it is difficult to mimic the mechanical properties of soft living tissues. Additionally, another significant problem is the lack of information about the mechanical properties of these tissues. Alternatively, the use of phantoms offers a promising solution to simulate biological bodies. For this reason, to advance in the state-of-the-art a wide range of organs (e.g., liver, heart, kidney as well as brain) and hydrogels (e.g., agarose, polyvinyl alcohol -PVA-, Phytagel -PHY- and methacrylate gelatine -GelMA-) were tested regarding their mechanical properties. For that, viscoelastic behavior, hardness, as well as a non-linear elastic mechanical response were measured. It was seen that there was a significant difference among the results for the different mentioned soft tissues. Some of them appear to be more elastic than viscous as well as being softer or harder. With all this information in mind, a correlation between the mechanical properties of the organs and the different materials was performed. The next conclusions were drawn: (1) to mimic the liver, the best material is 1% wt agarose; (2) to mimic the heart, the best material is 2% wt agarose; (3) to mimic the kidney, the best material is 4% wt GelMA; and (4) to mimic the brain, the best materials are 4% wt GelMA and 1% wt agarose. Neither PVA nor PHY was selected to mimic any of the studied tissues.

Indexed as

dynamic mechanical analysishardnesshydrogelsmaterialsmimickingsoft tissuestissue scaffoldingviscoelasticityWarner–Braztler shear test

Identifiers

PMID35049575
PMCPMC8774477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.