ArticlePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences2022
Modelling brain tissue elasticity with the Ogden model and an alternative family of constitutive models
Article in Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 2022. 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, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyperelastic models for the human zona pellucida and their implications on shear modulus estimation in the clinical practice.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Automated data-driven discovery of material models based on symbolic regression: A case study on the human brain cortex.Acta biomaterialia · 2024Article
- Rate-Dependent Tensile Properties of Aluminum-Hydroxide-Enhanced Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer Coatings for Solid Rocket Motors.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A review of human cornea finite element modeling: geometry modeling, constitutive modeling, and outlooks.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- The Ogden model of rubber mechanics: 50 years of impact on nonlinear elasticity.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Ogden model is often considered as a standard model in the literature for application to the deformation of brain tissue. Here, we show that, in some of those applications, the use of the Ogden model leads to the non-convexity of the strain-energy function and mis-prediction of the correct concavity of the experimental stress-stretch curves over a range of the deformation domain. By contrast, we propose a family of models which provides a favourable fit to the considered datasets while remaining free from the highlighted shortcomings of the Ogden model. While, as we discuss, those shortcomings might be due to the artefacts of the testing protocols, the proposed family of models proves impervious to such artefacts. This article is part of the theme issue 'The Ogden model of rubber mechanics: Fifty years of impact on nonlinear elasticity'.
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.