Why and how does collective red blood cells motion occur in the blood microcirculation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of red blood cells (RBCs), modelled as vesicles, in Poiseuille flow, mimicking the microvasculature, is studied with numerical simulations in two dimensions. RBCs moving in the centre of the Poiseuille flow (as in blood capillaries) are shown to attract each other and form clusters only due to hydrodynamic interactions, provided that their distance at a given time is below a certain critical value. This distance depends on physical parameters, such as the flow strength. Our simulations reveal that clusters are unstable above a threshold value in the number of forming RBCs, beyond which one or few cells escape the pack by a self-regulating mechanism that select the marginally stable size. This size selection depends on the flow strength as well as on the RBC swelling ratio. The results are interpreted via the analysis of the perturbation of the flow field induced by the vesicles and the interplay with bending and tension forces. This sheds a novel light on the process of collective motion of RBCs observed in vivo.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".