MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129507477 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5334175

Deriving a blood-mimicking fluid for particle image velocimetry in sylgard-184 vascular models

2009· article· en· W2129507477 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Y. Yousif, David W. Holdsworth, Tamie L. Poepping

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsParticle image velocimetryRefractive indexMaterials scienceBiomedical engineeringViscosityBlood flowFluid dynamicsOpticsMechanicsComposite materialPhysicsOptoelectronicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new blood-mimicking fluid (BMF) has been developed for particle image velocimetry (PIV), which enables flow studies in vascular models (phantoms). A major difficulty in PIV that affects measurement accuracy is the refraction and distortion of light passing through the interface between the model and the fluid, due to the difference in refractive index (n) between the two materials. The problem can be eliminated by using a fluid with a refractive index matching that of the model. Such fluids are not commonly available, especially for vascular research where the fluid should also have a viscosity similar to human blood. In this work, a blood-mimicking fluid, composed of water (47.38% by weight), glycerol (36.94% by weight) and sodium iodide salt (15.68% by weight), was developed for compatibility with our silicone (Sylgard 184; n = 1.414) phantoms. The fluid exhibits a dynamic viscosity of 4.31+/-0.03 cP which lies within the range of human blood viscosity (4.4+/-0.6 cP). Both refractive index and viscosity were attained at 22.2+/-0.2 degrees C, which is a feasible room temperature, thus eliminating the need for a temperature-control system. The fluid will be used to study hemodynamics in vascular flow models fabricated from Sylgard 184.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207