Computation of the Coefficients of the Power law model for Whole Blood and Their Correlation with Blood Parameters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">This study introduces a quantitative analysis of the coefficients of the power law model, which is used to describe the non-Newtonian behavior of blood. Twenty blood samples from healthy donors were used to measure the whole blood viscosity under different values of the shear rates, which are between 2.25 and 450.0 s<sup>-1</sup>. The shear rate viscosity curves were used to calculate <em>n</em> (flow index) and <em>m</em> (the consistency of the fluid) according to the power law model. Strong correlations (R<sup>2 </sup>&gt; 0.5) between <em>m</em> and the hematocrit (HCT %), hemoglobin (Hb), erythrocytes count (RBC), mean corpuscle volume (MCV), and mean corpuscle hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) were obtained. Strong correlations (R<sup>2 </sup>&gt; 0.5) between <em>n</em> and the RBC, MCV, and MCHC were achieved. The relation obtained between the power law coefficients and the blood parameters in the present investigation provides new parameters that can be used to evaluate the flow state of blood besides blood viscosity. In addition, these parameters may be used to examine blood under pathological conditions, representing a new tool for the diagnosis of blood abnormal conditions.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it