ArticlePhysical review letters2023
Micro and Macroscopic Stress-Strain Relations in Disordered Tessellated Networks.
Article in Physical review letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Frontiers in Ovarian Organoids: Bridging Development,Function, and Disease Modeling: A Review.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2026Article
- N-Cadherin based adhesion and Rac1 activity regulate tension polarization in the actin cortex.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We demonstrate that for a rigid and incompressible network in mechanical equilibrium, the microscopic stress and strain follows a simple relation, σ=pE, where σ is the deviatoric stress, E is a mean-field strain tensor, and p is the hydrostatic pressure. This relationship arises as the natural consequence of energy minimization or equivalently, mechanical equilibration. The result suggests not only that the microscopic stress and strain are aligned in the principal directions, but also microscopic deformations are predominantly affine. The relationship holds true regardless of the different (foam or tissue) energy model considered, and directly leads to a simple prediction for the shear modulus, μ=⟨p⟩/2, where ⟨p⟩ is the mean pressure of the tessellation, for general randomized lattices.
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.