Investigation of Pulsatile flow in the Upper Human Airways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pulsatile flow field in the human lung is numerically and experimentally investigated.The realistic lung geometry of a human subject was acquired down to the sixth generation of bifurcation and used as a tracheobronchial model.The numerical analysis is based on a lattice-boltzmann method which is particularly suited for flows in extremely intricate geometries such as the upper human airways.The measurements are performed via the particle-image velocimetry method in a transparent cast generated from the original dataset.Experimental and numerical results are analyzed in a comparative way and a thorough discussion of the three-dimensional flow structures emphasizes the unsteady character of the flow field.It is evidenced that the asymmetric geometry of the human lung plays a significant role for the development of the flow field in the respiratory system.Secondary vortex structures and their temporal formation are analyzed and described in detail for two respiration frequencies.It is shown that the qualitative structure of the intricate flow field does not vary if a critical mass flux rate is exceeded.at inspiration, the primary flow shows separated flow regions and is highly influenced by secondary flow structures.by contrast, at expiration the primary flow distribution is far more homogeneous with a higher level of vorticity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".