MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046161665 · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.3.837

A stochastic model for the self-similar heterogeneity of regional organ blood flow

2001· article· en· W2046161665 on OpenAlexaff
Wayne S. Kendal

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoisson distributionScalingStochastic modellingGamma distributionExponential functionStandard deviationExponential distributionFlow (mathematics)MathematicsBlood flowDistribution (mathematics)Dispersion (optics)Statistical physicsPhysicsStatisticsMechanicsMathematical analysisGeometryMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The theory of exponential dispersion models was applied to construct a stochastic model for heterogeneities in regional organ blood flow as inferred from the deposition of labeled microspheres. The requirements that the dispersion model be additive (or reproductive), scale invariant, and represent a compound Poisson distribution, implied that the relative dispersion (RD = standard deviation/mean) of blood flow should exhibit self-similar scaling in macroscopic tissue samples of masses m and m(ref) such that RD(m) = RD(m(ref)). (m/m(ref))(1-D), where D was a constant. Under these circumstances this empirical relationship was a consequence of a compound Poisson-gamma distribution that represented macroscopic blood flow. The model also predicted that blood flow, at the microcirculatory level, should also be heterogeneous but obey a gamma distribution-a prediction supported by observation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207