Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Approved analysis plan for a secondary analysis of porcine spinal-cord mechanical measurements. The study will audit how explicit constitutive, fixation, and indentation-processing choices affect held-out force predictions, and will release a checked mechanical specification and reproducibility flags. It specifies a primary bulk prediction test and secondary mapping and sensitivity-envelope tests, including fixed rules for failure and non-evaluability. The plan was approved before constitutive tissue fitting. Earlier exploratory data summaries and source-equation discrepancies were already known and are not retrospectively preregistered. This deposit contains the approved plan, machine-readable protocol and prediction rules, and content hashes; it contains no empirical model results or original raw dataset. Source dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17152951. Source article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2026.04.036. Numerical forward-model verification is required before empirical fitting. This is a timestamped analysis-plan archive, not a registered report or completed validation study. The deposit is the plan and specification subset; the Availability section also describes separate project review records that are not included in this public archive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: