Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mathematical model of interstitial fluid flow is developed, based on the application of the governing equations for fluid flow, i.e., the conservation laws for mass and momentum, to physiological systems containing solid tumors. The discretized form of the governing equations, with appropriate boundary conditions, is developed for a predefined tumor geometry. The interstitial fluid pressure and velocity are calculated using a numerical method, element based finite volume. Simulations of interstitial fluid transport in a homogeneous solid tumor demonstrate that, in a uniformly perfused tumor, i.e., one with no necrotic region, because of the interstitial pressure distribution, the distribution of drug particles is non-uniform. Pressure distribution for different values of necrotic radii is examined and two new parameters, the critical tumor radius and critical necrotic radius, are defined. Simulation results show that: 1) tumor radii have a critical size. Below this size, the maximum interstitial fluid pressure is less than what is generally considered to be effective pressure (a parameter determined by vascular pressure, plasma osmotic pressure, and interstitial osmotic pressure). Above this size, the maximum interstitial fluid pressure is equal to effective pressure. As a consequence, drugs transport to the center of smaller tumors is much easier than transport to the center of a tumor whose radius is greater than the critical tumor radius; 2) there is a critical necrotic radius, below which the interstitial fluid pressure at the tumor center is at its maximum value. If the tumor radius is greater than the critical tumor radius, this maximum pressure is equal to effective pressure. Above this critical necrotic radius, the interstitial fluid pressure at the tumor center is below effective pressure. In specific ranges of these critical sizes, drug amount and therefore therapeutic effects are higher because the opposing force, interstitial fluid pressure, is low in these ranges.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".