Effect of Fluid Friction on Interstitial Fluid Flow Coupled with Blood Flow through Solid Tumor Microvascular Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A solid tumor is investigated as porous media for fluid flow simulation. Most of the studies use Darcy model for porous media. In Darcy model, the fluid friction is neglected and a few simplified assumptions are implemented. In this study, the effect of these assumptions is studied by considering Brinkman model. A multiscale mathematical method which calculates fluid flow to a solid tumor is used in this study to investigate how neglecting fluid friction affects the solid tumor simulation. The mathematical method involves processes such as blood flow through vessels and solute and fluid diffusion, convective transport in extracellular matrix, and extravasation from blood vessels. The sprouting angiogenesis model is used for generating capillary network and then fluid flow governing equations are implemented to calculate blood flow through the tumor-induced capillary network. Finally, the two models of porous media are used for modeling fluid flow in normal and tumor tissues in three different shapes of tumors. Simulations of interstitial fluid transport in a solid tumor demonstrate that the simplifications used in Darcy model affect the interstitial velocity and Brinkman model predicts a lower value for interstitial velocity than the values that Darcy model predicts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".