ArticleJournal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials2025
Exploring hyperelastic material model discovery for human brain cortex: Multivariate analysis vs. artificial neural network approaches.
Article in Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel fault diagnosis method based on EEWT-EWLTSA and improved deep ELM.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mechanical characterization of brain tissue: experimental techniques, human testing considerations, and perspectives.Acta biomaterialia · 2025Review
- Article
- Automated data-driven discovery of material models based on symbolic regression: A case study on the human brain cortex.Acta biomaterialia · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The human brain, characterized by its intricate architecture, exhibits complex mechanical properties that underpin its critical functional capabilities. Traditional computational methods, such as finite element analysis, have been instrumental in uncovering the fundamental mechanisms governing the brain's physical behaviors. However, accurate predictions of brain mechanics require effective constitutive models to represent the nuanced mechanical properties of brain tissue. In this study, we aimed to identify well-suited material models for human brain tissue by leveraging artificial neural network and multiple regression techniques. These methods were applied to a generalized framework of widely accepted classic models, and their respective outcomes were systematically compared. To evaluate model efficacy, all setups were maintained consistent across both approaches, except for strategies employed to mitigate potential overfitting. Our findings reveal that artificial neural networks are capable of automatically identifying accurate constitutive models from given admissible estimators. However, the five-term and two-term neural network models trained under single-mode and multi-mode loading scenarios, respectively, were found to be suboptimal. These models could be further simplified into two-term and single-term formulations using multiple regression, achieving even higher predictive accuracy. This refinement underscores the importance of rigorous cross-validations of regularization parameters in neural network-based methods to ensure globally optimal model selection. Additionally, our study demonstrates that traditional multivariable regression methods, when combined with appropriate information criterion, are also highly effective in discovering optimal constitutive models. These insights contribute to the ongoing development of advanced material constitutive models, particularly for complex biological tissues.
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.