MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023932207 · doi:10.1159/000179022

Capillary Network Morphology and Capillary Flow

2008· article· en· W2023932207 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. Groom, Christopher G. Ellis, S.J. Wrigley, Richard F. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Microcirculation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapillary actionMorphology (biology)ChemistryBiologyMaterials scienceZoologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the authors' research on capillary network morphology and the heterogeneity of capillary red cell (RBC) perfusion in skeletal muscle with the aim of demonstrating that capillary network structure plays a major role in determining flow distribution. Capillary network morphology was examined by quantifying the heterogeneity of capillary diameters, path and segment lengths, as well as the changes in configuration that occur as vessels accommodate themselves to continual changes of fiber length. Because of the network complexity and the two-phase nature of the perfusing blood, both spatial (i.e. among capillaries) and temporal heterogeneity of capillary perfusion were predicted to result. By means of computer analysis of video images of the microcirculation in vivo, we have demonstrated that more than 70% of the total spatial heterogeneity of capillary RBC perfusion arises from the capillary network as opposed to the arterioles, and that RBC flow continuously redistributes among capillaries. The spatial heterogeneity increases substantially as the arteriolar input to the network falls, and the data predict that during low-flow states, the network will fail to distribute blood properly among its constituent vessels. Thus passive rheological mechanisms and capillary network morphology are important determinants of functional capillary density.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of MicrocirculationSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207