Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micropipet aspiration has been widely employed to study the mechanical behavior of passive neutrophils. The observed dynamics have been rationalized in terms of mechanical models that describe these cell as “slippery droplets” of viscous fluid enclosed by a surface or cortical tension. Here, a low Reynolds number hydrodynamics code based on the finite element method was utilized to analyze several such fluid models (e.g., Newtonian and shear thinning). We investigated the behavior of these models as a function of surface tension, droplet radius, viscosity, aspiration pressure, and pipet radius. In addition, for the simplest case of a Newtonian fluid droplet, we tabulated a dimensionless factor, M, which was utilized to approximate the apparent viscosity of the neutrophil. This analysis resulted in a useful method by which rheological parameters could be determined and subsequent models tested. Overall, of the models tested, the mechanical behavior of the passive neutrophil during micropipet aspiration can be best represented by a fluid droplet consisting of a shear thinning bulk viscosity, a shear thinning dilatational surface viscosity, and an area-dependent surface tension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".