Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41564032›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Monolithic scalable compliant mechanisms.

Jared R Hunter, Bethany Parkinson, Jacob L Sheffield, Mark B Rober, Brian D Jensen, Spencer P Magleby, Nathan S Usevitch, Larry L Howell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Jared R HunterDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5895-4710
Bethany ParkinsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8414-8613
Jacob L SheffieldDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Mark B RoberCrunchLabs LLC, Sunnyvale, California, United States of America.
Brian D JensenDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Spencer P MaglebyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Nathan S UsevitchDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.
Larry L HowellDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8132-8822

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scaling a physical device's geometry results in mechanical properties changing in various ways (e.g. the cubed-squared law states that for a scaling factor C, mass scales with C3 and surface area with C2). These scaling effects can result in a device's inconsistent and unplanned mechanical behavior when varying its fabricated size, thereby necessitating unique designs at different scales. We show that for displacement-driven compliant mechanisms, mechanical stress is uniquely invariant with scale. This effect is described theoretically, verified through computer models and physical testing, and is demonstrated in three examples: a parallel-guiding mechanism, a projectile launcher, and a deployable chair. This enhanced understanding of stress invariance provides innovative insight into the way devices can be designed for systems that operate across different scales.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalComputer SimulationEquipment DesignStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID41564032
PMCPMC12822923

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.