MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315183137 · doi:10.1115/icnmm2012-73177

Micro Particle Image Velocimetry and Numerical Investigation of Micro Couette Blood Flow

2012· article· en· W2315183137 on OpenAlexaff
Rym Mehri, Catherine Mavriplis, Marianne Fenech

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCouette flowMechanicsVelocimetryParticle image velocimetryNewtonian fluidMaterials scienceComputational fluid dynamicsShear rateNon-Newtonian fluidSolverFlow (mathematics)RheologyPhysicsComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the work presented this paper is to design a model to study experimentally and numerically a micro-Couette blood flow to obtain a constant and controlled shear rate that is a suitable environment for analysis of Red Blood Cell (RBC) aggregation. Due to the simplicity of the flow conditions, aggregate size can be related to the constant shear rate applied. This Couette flow is created by the motion of a second fluid that entrains the blood. The experimental work is coupled with 3D numerical simulations performed using a research computational fluid dynamics solver, Nek5000, based on the spectral element method, while the experiments are conducted using a micro-particle image velocimetry system. Two models of microchannels, with different dimensions, 150 × 33μm and 170 × 64μm, are fabricated in the laboratory using standard photolithography methods. The design of the channel is based on several parameters determined by the simulations. A Newtonian model is tested numerically and experimentally. Blood is then tested experimentally to be compared to the simulation results. We find that using a velocity ratio of 4 between the two Newtonian fluids, we create a flow where one third of the channel thickness is filled with the fluid destined to be blood. In the blood experiments, the velocity profile in this layer is approximately linear, resulting in the desired controlled conditions for the study of RBC aggregation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207