Dufort, C. C., Paszek, M. J. & Weaver, V. M. Balancing forces: architectural control of mechanotransduction. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12, 308–319 (2011).
Google Scholar
Mecham, R. P. Overview of Extracellular Matrix. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 57, 10.1.1–10.1.16 (2012).
Google Scholar
Mouw, J. K., Ou, G. & Weaver, V. M. Extracellular matrix assembly: a multiscale deconstruction. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 771–785 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kanchanawong, P. & Calderwood, D. A. Organization, dynamics and mechanoregulation of integrin-mediated cell–ECM adhesions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 142–161 (2023).
Google Scholar
Jain, K. et al. Immobile Integrin Signaling Transit and Relay Nodes Organize Mechanosignaling through Force-Dependent Phosphorylation in Focal Adhesions. ACS Nano 19, 2070–2088 (2025).
Stashko, C. et al. A convolutional neural network STIFMap reveals associations between stromal stiffness and EMT in breast cancer. Nat. Commun. 14, 1–16 (2023).
Google Scholar
Christiansen, E. M. et al. In Silico Labeling: Predicting Fluorescent Labels in Unlabeled Images. Cell 173, 792–803.e19 (2018).
Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. S. et al. Machine learning interpretable models of cell mechanics from protein images. Cell 187, 481–494.e24 (2024).
Google Scholar
Frantz, C., Stewart, K. M. & Weaver, V. M. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 123, 4195–4200 (2010).
Google Scholar
Saraswathibhatla, A., Indana, D. & Chaudhuri, O. Cell–extracellular matrix mechanotransduction in 3D. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 495–516 (2023).
Google Scholar
Petridou, N. I., Spiró, Z. & Heisenberg, C. P. Multiscale force sensing in development. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 581–588 (2017).
Google Scholar
Roca-Cusachs, P., Conte, V. & Trepat, X. Quantifying forces in cell biology. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 742–751 (2017).
Google Scholar
De Belly, H., Paluch, E. K. & Chalut, K. J. Interplay between mechanics and signalling in regulating cell fate. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 465–480 (2022).
Google Scholar
Hytönen, V. P. & Wehrle-Haller, B. Mechanosensing in cell–matrix adhesions – Converting tension into chemical signals. Exp. Cell Res.343, 35–41 (2016).
Google Scholar
Smith, M. L. et al. Force-Induced Unfolding of Fibronectin in the Extracellular Matrix of Living Cells. PLoS Biol. 5, e268 (2007).
Google Scholar
Saini, K., Cho, S., Dooling, L. J. & Discher, D. E. Tension in fibrils suppresses their enzymatic degradation – A molecular mechanism for ‘use it or lose it’. Matrix Biol. 85–86, 34–46 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kubow, K. E. et al. Mechanical forces regulate the interactions of fibronectin and collagen I in extracellular matrix. Nat. Commun. 6, 1–11 (2015).
Google Scholar
Elosegui-Artola, A. et al. Rigidity sensing and adaptation through regulation of integrin types. Nat. Mater. 13, 631–637 (2014).
Google Scholar
Guimarães, C. F., Gasperini, L., Marques, A. P. & Reis, R. L. The stiffness of living tissues and its implications for tissue engineering. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 351–370 (2020).
Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, O., Cooper-White, J., Janmey, P. A., Mooney, D. J. & Shenoy, V. B. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature 584, 535–546 (2020).
Google Scholar
Nia, H. T. et al. Solid stress and elastic energy as measures of tumour mechanopathology. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 1–11 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tse, J. M. et al. Mechanical compression drives cancer cells toward invasive phenotype. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 911–916 (2012).
Google Scholar
Fernandez-Sanchez, M. E. et al. Mechanical induction of the tumorigenic β-catenin pathway by tumour growth pressure. Nature 523, 92–95 (2015).
Google Scholar
Levental, K. R. et al. Matrix Crosslinking Forces Tumor Progression by Enhancing Integrin Signaling. Cell 139, 891–906 (2009).
Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, O. et al. Extracellular matrix stiffness and composition jointly regulate the induction of malignant phenotypes in mammary epithelium. Nat. Mater. 13, 970–978 (2014).
Google Scholar
Mai, Z., Lin, Y., Lin, P., Zhao, X. & Cui, L. Modulating extracellular matrix stiffness: a strategic approach to boost cancer immunotherapy. Cell Death Dis. 15, 1–16 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tamiello, C. et al. Soft substrates normalize nuclear morphology and prevent nuclear rupture in fibroblasts from a laminopathy patient with compound heterozygous LMNA mutations. Nucleus 4, 61 (2013).
Google Scholar
Swift, J. et al. Nuclear lamin-A scales with tissue stiffness and enhances matrix-directed differentiation. Science (1979) 341, 1240104 (2013).
Jetta, D., Gottlieb, P. A., Verma, D., Sachs, F. & Hua, S. Z. Shear stress-induced nuclear shrinkage through activation of Piezo1 channels in epithelial cells. J. Cell Sci. 132, jcs226076 (2019).
Chistiakov, D. A., Orekhov, A. N. & Bobryshev, Y. V. Effects of shear stress on endothelial cells: go with the flow. Acta Physiol. (Oxf.) 219, 382–408 (2017).
Google Scholar
Roux, E., Bougaran, P., Dufourcq, P. & Couffinhal, T. Fluid Shear Stress Sensing by the Endothelial Layer. Front Physiol. 11, 533349 (2020).
Google Scholar
Pahakis, M. Y., Kosky, J. R., Dull, R. O. & Tarbell, J. M. The role of endothelial glycocalyx components in mechanotransduction of fluid shear stress. Biochem Biophys. Res. Commun. 355, 228–233 (2007).
Google Scholar
Girard, P. R. & Nerem, R. M. Shear stress modulates endothelial cell morphology and F-actin organization through the regulation of focal adhesion-associated proteins. J. Cell Physiol. 163, 179–193 (1995).
Google Scholar
Steward, R., Tambe, D., Corey Hardin, C., Krishnan, R. & Fredberg, J. J. Fluid shear, intercellular stress, and endothelial cell alignment. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 308, C657 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sumpio, B. E. & Banes, A. J. Response of porcine aortic smooth muscle cells to cyclic tensional deformation in culture. J. Surg. Res 44, 696–701 (1988).
Google Scholar
Dang, C. V. & Semenza, G. L. Oncogenic alterations of metabolism. Trends Biochem Sci. 24, 68–72 (1999).
Google Scholar
Cukierman, E., Pankov, R., Stevens, D. R. & Yamada, K. M. Taking cell-matrix adhesions to the third dimension. Science (1979) 294, 1708–1712 (2001).
Yamada, K. M., Doyle, A. D. & Lu, J. Cell–3D matrix interactions: recent advances and opportunities. Trends Cell Biol. 32, 883–895 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kai, F. et al. ECM dimensionality tunes actin tension to modulate endoplasmic reticulum function and spheroid phenotypes of mammary epithelial cells. EMBO J. 41, 109205 (2022).
Google Scholar
Erler, J. T. & Weaver, V. M. Three-dimensional context regulation of metastasis. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 26, 35 (2009).
Google Scholar
Loessner, D. et al. Bioengineered 3D platform to explore cell-ECM interactions and drug resistance of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Biomaterials 31, 8494–8506 (2010).
Google Scholar
Winkler, J., Abisoye-Ogunniyan, A., Metcalf, K. J. & Werb, Z. Concepts of extracellular matrix remodelling in tumour progression and metastasis. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–19 (2020).
Google Scholar
Huang, J. et al. Extracellular matrix and its therapeutic potential for cancer treatment. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 6, 1–24 (2021).
Google Scholar
Kechagia, J. Z., Ivaska, J. & Roca-Cusachs, P. Integrins as biomechanical sensors of the microenvironment. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 457–473 (2019).
Google Scholar
Benham-Pyle, B. W., Pruitt, B. L. & Nelson, W. J. Mechanical strain induces E-cadherin-dependent Yap1 and β-catenin activation to drive cell cycle entry. Science (1979) 348, 1024–1027 (2015).
Coste, B. et al. Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science (1979) 330, 55–60 (2010).
Google Scholar
Groves, J. T. & Kuriyan, J. Molecular mechanisms in signal transduction at the membrane. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 659–665 (2010).
Google Scholar
Yang, B. et al. Stopping transformed cancer cell growth by rigidity sensing. Nat. Mater. 19, 239 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ghassemi, S. et al. Cells test substrate rigidity by local contractions on submicrometer pillars. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5328–5333 (2012).
Google Scholar
Jain, K. et al. Intrinsic self-organization of integrin nanoclusters within focal adhesions is required for cellular mechanotransduction. bioRxiv 2023.11.20.567975 (2023).
Oria, R. et al. Force loading explains spatial sensing of ligands by cells. Nature 552, 219–224 (2017).
Google Scholar
Giannone, G. & Sheetz, M. P. Substrate rigidity and force define form through tyrosine phosphatase and kinase pathways. Trends Cell Biol. 16, 213–223 (2006).
Google Scholar
Elosegui-Artola, A. et al. Force Triggers YAP Nuclear Entry by Regulating Transport across Nuclear Pores. Cell 171, 1397–1410.e14 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sathe, A. R., Shivashankar, G. V. & Sheetz, M. P. Nuclear transport of paxillin depends on focal adhesion dynamics and FAT domains. J. Cell Sci. 129, 1981–1988 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wei, S. C. et al. Matrix stiffness drives epithelial–mesenchymal transition and tumour metastasis through a TWIST1–G3BP2 mechanotransduction pathway. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 678–688 (2015).
Google Scholar
Vining, K. H. & Mooney, D. J. Mechanical forces direct stem cell behaviour in development and regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 728–742 (2017).
Google Scholar
Engler, A. J., Sen, S., Sweeney, H. L. & Discher, D. E. Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification. Cell 126, 677–689 (2006).
Google Scholar
Qin, R. et al. Tumor Suppressor DAPK1 Catalyzes Adhesion Assembly on Rigid but Anoikis on Soft Matrices. Front Cell Dev. Biol. 10, 959521 (2022).
Google Scholar
Von Erlach, T. C. et al. Cell-geometry-dependent changes in plasma membrane order direct stem cell signalling and fate. Nat. Mater. 17, 237–242 (2018).
Google Scholar
Théry, M., Pépin, A., Dressaire, E., Chen, Y. & Bornens, M. Cell distribution of stress fibres in response to the geometry of the adhesive environment. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 63, 341–355 (2006).
Google Scholar
Paul, C. D., Mistriotis, P. & Konstantopoulos, K. Cancer cell motility: lessons from migration in confined spaces. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 131–140 (2016).
Google Scholar
Miron-Mendoza, M., Seemann, J. & Grinnell, F. The differential regulation of cell motile activity through matrix stiffness and porosity in three dimensional collagen matrices. Biomaterials 31, 6425–6435 (2010).
Google Scholar
Hiraki, H. L. et al. Fiber density and matrix stiffness modulate distinct cell migration modes in a 3D stroma mimetic composite hydrogel. Acta Biomater. 163, 378–391 (2023).
Google Scholar
Wolf, K. & Friedl, P. Extracellular matrix determinants of proteolytic and non-proteolytic cell migration. Trends Cell Biol. 21, 736–744 (2011).
Google Scholar
Xia, F. & Youcef-Toumi, K. Review: Advanced Atomic Force Microscopy Modes for Biomedical Research. Biosensors 12, 1116 (2022).
Ciasca, G. et al. Nano-mechanical signature of brain tumours. Nanoscale 8, 19629–19643 (2016).
Miroshnikova, Y. A. et al. Tissue mechanics promote IDH1-dependent HIF1α-tenascin C feedback to regulate glioblastoma aggression. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 1336–1345 (2016).
Maller, O. et al. Tumour-associated macrophages drive stromal cell-dependent collagen crosslinking and stiffening to promote breast cancer aggression. Nat Mater 20, 548–559 (2021).
Plodinec, M. et al. The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 757–765 (2012).
Fiore, V. F. et al. αvβ3 Integrin drives fibroblast contraction and strain stiffening of soft provisional matrix during progressive fibrosis. JCI Insight 3, e97597 (2018).
Laklai, H. et al. Genotype tunes pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tissue tension to induce matricellular fibrosis and tumor progression. Nat. Med. 22, 497–505 (2016).
Northey, J. J. et al. Stiff stroma increases breast cancer risk by inducing the oncogene ZNF217. J. Clin. Invest 130, 5721–5737 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bonfanti, A., Kaplan, J. L., Charras, G. & Kabla, A. Fractional viscoelastic models for power-law materials. Soft Matter. 16, 6002-6020 (2020).
Tang, X. et al. Measuring the biomechanical properties of prostate tumor tissues by atomic force microscopy. In Eleventh International Conference on Information Optics and Photonics (COIP 2019) 11209, 910–916 (2019).
Levillain, A. et al. Mechanical properties of breast, kidney, and thyroid tumours measured by AFM: Relationship with tissue structure. Materialia (Oxf) 25, 101555 (2022).
Efremov, Y. M., Wang, W. H., Hardy, S. D., Geahlen, R. L. & Raman, A. Measuring nanoscale viscoelastic parameters of cells directly from AFM force-displacement curves. Sci. Rep. 7, 1541 (2017).
Abuhattum, S. et al. An explicit model to extract viscoelastic properties of cells from AFM force-indentation curves. iScience 25, 104016 (2022).
Mandal, S. S. Force Spectroscopy on Single Molecules of Life. ACS Omega 5, 11271–11278 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kong, F., García, A. J., Mould, A. P., Humphries, M. J. & Zhu, C. Demonstration of catch bonds between an integrin and its ligand. J. Cell Biol. 185, 1275–1284 (2009).
Google Scholar
Erickson, H. P. Protein unfolding under isometric tension — what force can integrins generate, and can it unfold FNIII domains? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 42, 98–105 (2017).
Del Rio, A. et al. Stretching single talin rod molecules activates vinculin binding. Science (1979) 323, 638–641 (2009).
Sun, Y., Liu, X., Huang, W., Le, S. & Yan, J. Structural domain in the Titin N2B-us region binds to FHL2 in a force-activation dependent manner. Nat. Commun. 15, 1–14 (2024).
Google Scholar
Baek, K. Y., Kim, S. & Koh, H. R. Molecular Tension Probes to Quantify Cell-Generated Mechanical Forces. Mol. Cells 45, 26–32 (2022).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Ge, C., Zhu, C. & Salaita, K. DNA-based digital tension probes reveal integrin forces during early cell adhesion. Nat. Commun. 5, 5167 (2014).
Google Scholar
Ringer, P. et al. Multiplexing molecular tension sensors reveals piconewton force gradient across talin-1. Nat. Methods 14, 1090–1096 (2017).
Google Scholar
Kumar, A. et al. Local Tension on Talin in Focal Adhesions Correlates with F-Actin Alignment at the Nanometer Scale. Biophys. J. 115, 1569–1579 (2018).
Google Scholar
Tao, A. et al. Identifying constitutive and context-specific molecular-tension-sensitive protein recruitment within focal adhesions. Dev Cell 58, 522–534 (2023).
Lagendijk, A. K. et al. Live imaging molecular changes in junctional tension upon VE-cadherin in zebrafish. Nat. Commun. 8, 1402 (2017).
Google Scholar
Eder, D., Basler, K. & Aegerter, C. M. Challenging FRET-based E-Cadherin force measurements in Drosophila. Sci. Rep. 7, 13692 (2017).
Paszek, M. J. et al. The cancer glycocalyx mechanically primes integrin-mediated growth and survival. Nature 511, 319–325 (2014).
Google Scholar
Al Abdullatif, S. et al. Molecular Compressive Force Sensor for Mapping Forces at the Cell-Substrate Interface. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 146, 6830–6836 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bergert, M. et al. Confocal reference free traction force microscopy. Nat. Commun. 7, 12814 (2016).
Google Scholar
Lee, M. et al. High-resolution assessment of multidimensional cellular mechanics using label-free refractive-index traction force microscopy. Commun. Biol. 7, 115 (2024).
Google Scholar
Bauer, A. et al. pyTFM: A tool for traction force and monolayer stress microscopy. PLoS Comput Biol. 17, e1008364 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hirata, H. & Sokabe, M. Measurement and Manipulation of Cellular Forces Using Silicone Elastomers. In Material-based Mechanobiology. (2022).
Han, S. J., Bielawski, K. S., Ting, L. H., Rodriguez, M. L. & Sniadecki, N. J. Decoupling substrate stiffness, spread area, and micropost density: A close spatial relationship between traction forces and focal adhesions. Biophys. J. 103, 640–648 (2012).
Google Scholar
Shroff, N. P. et al. Proliferation-driven mechanical compression induces signalling centre formation during mammalian organ development. Nat. Cell Biol. 26, 519–529 (2024).
Google Scholar
Campàs, O. et al. Quantifying cell-generated mechanical forces within living embryonic tissues. Nat. Methods 11, 183–189 (2014).
Google Scholar
Dolega, M. E. et al. Cell-like pressure sensors reveal increase of mechanical stress towards the core of multicellular spheroids under compression. Nat. Commun. 8, 14056 (2017).
Jain, K. et al. Ligand functionalization of titanium nanopattern enables the analysis of cell–ligand interactions by super-resolution microscopy. Nat. Protoc. 17, 2275–2306 (2022).
Google Scholar
Jain, K. et al. TiO2 Nano-Biopatterning Reveals Optimal Ligand Presentation for Cell–Matrix Adhesion Formation. Adv. Mater. 36, 2309284 (2024).
Arnold, M. et al. Activation of integrin function by nanopatterned adhesive interfaces. ChemPhysChem 5, 383–388 (2004).
Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. Computing machinery and intelligence. In Machine Intelligence: Persp. Comput. Model. (2012).
Greener, J. G., Kandathil, S. M., Moffat, L. & Jones, D. T. A guide to machine learning for biologists. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 40–55 (2022).
Sarker, I. H. Machine Learning: Algorithms, Real-World Applications and Research Directions. SN Comput. Sci. 2, 160 (2021).
Li, H. et al. Wrinkle force microscopy: a machine learning based approach to predict cell mechanics from images. Commun. Biol. 5, 1–9 (2022).
Google Scholar
Li, C. et al. Machine learning traction force maps for contractile cell monolayers. Extrem. Mech. Lett. 68, 102150 (2024).
Google Scholar
SubramanianBalachandar, V. A., Islam, M. M. & Steward, R. L. A machine learning approach to predict cellular mechanical stresses in response to chemical perturbation. Biophys. J. 122, 3413–3424 (2023).
Google Scholar
Ayad, N. M. E., Lakins, J. N., Ghagre, A., Ehrlicher, A. J. & Weaver, V. M. Tissue tension permits β-catenin phosphorylation to drive mesoderm specification in human embryonic stem cells. bioRxiv (2023).
Giolando, P. et al. AI-dente: an open machine learning based tool to interpret nano-indentation data of soft tissues and materials. Soft Matter 19, 6710–6720 (2023).
Google Scholar
Smith, M. G. et al. Machine learning opens a doorway for microrheology with optical tweezers in living systems. AIP Adv. 13, 75315 (2023).
Google Scholar
Fanizzi, A. et al. A machine learning approach on multiscale texture analysis for breast microcalcification diagnosis. BMC Bioinforma. 21, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar
Xiao, F. et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for brain tumor detection: clinical roles and current progress. Am. J. Transl. Res. 12, 1379 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kaya-Okur, H. S., Janssens, D. H., Henikoff, J. G., Ahmad, K. & Henikoff, S. Efficient low-cost chromatin profiling with CUT&Tag. Nat. Protoc. 15, 3264–3283 (2020).
Google Scholar
Nakato, R. & Sakata, T. Methods for ChIP-seq analysis: A practical workflow and advanced applications. Methods 187, 44–53 (2021).
Buenrostro, J. D., Giresi, P. G., Zaba, L. C., Chang, H. Y. & Greenleaf, W. J. Transposition of native chromatin for fast and sensitive epigenomic profiling of open chromatin, DNA-binding proteins and nucleosome position. Nat. Methods 10, 1213–1218 (2013).
Oh, D. et al. CNN-Peaks: ChIP-Seq peak detection pipeline using convolutional neural networks that imitate human visual inspection. Sci. Rep. 10, 7933 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hentges, L. D. et al. LanceOtron: a deep learning peak caller for genome sequencing experiments. Bioinformatics 38, 4255–4263 (2022).
Google Scholar
Scott, A. K., Rafuse, M. & Neu, C. P. Mechanically induced alterations in chromatin architecture guide the balance between cell plasticity and mechanical memory. Front Cell Dev. Biol. 11, 1084759 (2023).
Google Scholar
Sommer, C. & Gerlich, D. W. Machine learning in cell biology-teaching computers to recognize phenotypes. J. Cell Sci. 126, 5529–5539 (2013).
Google Scholar
Allam, M. et al. Spatially variant immune infiltration scoring in human cancer tissues. npj Precis. Oncol. 6, 1–21 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bonnevie, E. D. et al. Cell morphology and mechanosensing can be decoupled in fibrous microenvironments and identified using artificial neural networks. Sci. Rep. 11, 5950 (2021).
Google Scholar
Elosegui-Artola, A. et al. Mechanical regulation of a molecular clutch defines force transmission and transduction in response to matrix rigidity. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 540–548 (2016).
Challa, K. et al. Imaging and AI based chromatin biomarkers for diagnosis and therapy evaluation from liquid biopsies. npj Precis. Oncol. 7, 1–13 (2023).
Google Scholar
Duran, I. et al. Detection of senescence using machine learning algorithms based on nuclear features. Nat. Commun. 15, 1041 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar
Sarkans, U. et al. The BioStudies database—one stop shop for all data supporting a life sciences study. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1266–D1270 (2018).
Google Scholar
Williams, E. et al. Image Data Resource: a bioimage data integration and publication platform. Nat. Methods 14, 775–781 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ouyang, W. et al. ShareLoc — an open platform for sharing localization microscopy data. Nat. Methods 19, 1331–1333 (2022).
Google Scholar
Abercrombie, M., Heaysman, J. E. M. & Pegrum, S. M. The locomotion of fibroblasts in culture. IV. Electron microscopy of the leading lamella. Exp. Cell Res. 67, 359–367 (1971).
Google Scholar
Májovský, M., Černý, M., Kasal, M., Komarc, M. & Netuka, D. Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened. J. Med. Internet Res. 25, e46924 (2023).
Google Scholar
Heyndels, S. Technology and Neutrality. Philos. Technol. 36, 1–22 (2023).
Google Scholar
link