ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Analysis of digital vernier caliper
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accurately measuring tissue thickness is a crucial technical aspect and a source of bias in biomechanical analysis, as even minor errors can substantially affect stress, elasticity, and tissue behavior. This study analyzes the reproducibility and consistency of specimen thickness measurements by experienced users using a digital caliper under two protocols and a specialized device under a third, also assessing the impact on biomechanical properties. Method: The current study is a methodological study in which we examined the thickness of the porcine arterial wall, specifically segments from the aorta, carotid, and coronary arteries. For the first two protocols, thickness measurements were performed using a digital vernier caliper (Multicomp PRO MP012475), whereas a dedicated digital thickness gauge (Mitutoyo 547-500S, Kawasaki, Japan) was employed for the third protocol. Biomechanical testing was conducted using a BioTester® 5000 (CellScale, Canada), fitted with two opposing BioRakes mounted on actuators to apply uniaxial tensile loading at 25% and 50% stretch. Results: For coronary artery wall thickness measurements, significant protocol-dependent differences between novice users for Protocol 1 and Protocol 3 (p = 0.0384), and for intermediate users using the same protocols (p = 0.0122). The mechanical response of porcine vascular tissues at 25% and 50% stretch was not influenced by operator experience, as no statistically significant differences in Cauchy stress were observed among users across the three experimental protocols. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the method used to measure arterial wall thickness influences reproducibility, particularly in thin-walled vessels such as coronary arteries, and when performed by less experienced users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.