kth.sePublications KTH
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Community challenge towards consensus on characterization of biological tissue: C4Bio's first
Katholieke Univ Leuven, FIBEr Core Facil Biomech Experimentat, Celestijnenlaan 300, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium; Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Mech Engn, Soft Tissue Biomech Grp, Celestijnenlaan 300, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences (SCI), Engineering Mechanics, Material and Structural Mechanics.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6544-628X
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences (SCI), Engineering Mechanics, Material and Structural Mechanics.
Virtual Physiol Human Inst, Celestijnenlaan 300c, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium.
Number of Authors: 502026 (English)In: Journal of Biomechanics, ISSN 0021-9290, E-ISSN 1873-2380, Vol. 194, article id 113021Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study investigates methodological variability across various expert laboratories worldwide, with regards to characterizing the mechanical properties of biological tissues. Two testing rounds were conducted on the specific use case of uniaxial tensile testing of porcine aorta. In the first round, 24 labs were invited to apply their established methods to assess inter-laboratory variability. This revealed significant methodological diversity and associated variability in the stress-stretch results, underscoring the necessity for a standardized approach. In the second round, a consensus protocol was collaboratively developed and adopted by 19 labs in an attempt to minimize variability. This involved standardized sample preparation and uniformity in testing protocol, including the use of a common cutting and thickness measurement tool. Despite protocol harmonization, significant variability persisted across labs, which could not be solely attributed to inherent biological differences in tissue samples. These results illustrate the challenges in unifying testing methods across different research settings, underlining the necessity for further refinement of testing practices. Enhancing consistency in biomechanical experiments is pivotal when comparing results across studies, as well as when using the resulting material properties for in silico simulations in medical research.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier BV , 2026. Vol. 194, article id 113021
Keywords [en]
Biomechanical characterization, Standardization, Methodological variability, Uncertainty
National Category
Materials Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-375557DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.113021ISI: 001607409600002PubMedID: 41138606Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-105020922788OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-375557DiVA, id: diva2:2031200
Note

QC 20260122

Available from: 2026-01-22 Created: 2026-01-22 Last updated: 2026-01-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Alloisio, MartaGasser, T. Christian

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Alloisio, MartaGasser, T. Christian
By organisation
Material and Structural Mechanics
In the same journal
Journal of Biomechanics
Materials Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 13 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf