ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2024
Continuum Growth Mechanics: Reconciling Two Common Frameworks.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Theoretical Considerations for Patient-Specific Modeling Based on Observable State Variables.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2026Article
- Article
- An open-source computational framework for immersed fluid-structure interaction modeling using FEBio and MFEM.Engineering with computers · 2026Article
- Multiscale Kinematic Growth Coupled With Mechanosensitive Systems Biology in Open-Source Software.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2025Article
- Modeling Fatigue Failure of Cartilage and Fibrous Biological Tissues Using Constrained Reactive Mixture Theory.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2024Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate whether the two most common growth mechanics modeling frameworks, the constrained-mixture growth model and the kinematic growth model, could be reconciled mathematically. The purpose of this effort was to provide practical guidelines for potential users of these modeling frameworks. Results showed that the kinematic growth model is mathematically consistent with a special form of the constrained-mixture growth model, where only one generation of a growing solid exists at any given time, overturning its entire solid mass at each instant of growth in order to adopt the reference configuration dictated by the growth deformation. The thermodynamics of the kinematic growth model, along with the specialized constrained-mixture growth model, requires a cellular supply of chemical energy to allow deposition of solid mass under a stressed state. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the amount of chemical energy required to sustain biological growth under these models is negligibly small, when compared to the amount of energy normally consumed daily by the human body. In conclusion, this study successfully reconciled the two most popular growth theories for biological growth and explained the special circumstances under which the constrained-mixture growth model reduces to the kinematic growth model.
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.