Effects of Purge-Flow Rate on Microbubble Capture in Radial Arterial-Line Filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of microbubble filtration from blood is complex and highly dependent on the forces of flow and buoyancy. To protect the patient from air emboli, arterial-line filters commonly use a micropore screen, a large volume housing with purpose-built shape, and a purge port to trap, separate, and remove circulating microbubbles. Although it has been proposed that an insufficient buoyancy force renders the purge port ineffective at removing microbubbles smaller than 500 μm, this research attempts to investigate the purge flow of an arterial-line filter to better understand the microbubble removal function in a typical radial filter design. As its primary objective, the study aims to determine the effect of purge-flow rate on bubble capture using air bolus injections from a syringe pump with 22-gauge needle and Doppler ultrasound bubble detection. The measureable bubble size generated in the test circuit ranged between 30 and 500 μm, while purge flow was varied between .1 and .5 L/min for testing. Statistical analysis of the test data was handled using a repeated measures design with significance set atp< .05 level. Outcomes demonstrated that higher purge flows yielded higher bubble counts, but the effect of purge-flow rate on bubble capture decreased as bubble size increased. Results also showed that purge flow from the test filter was capable of capturing all bubble sizes being generated over the entire flow range tested, and confirms utility of the purge port in removing microbubbles smaller than 500 μm. By analyzing bubble counts in the purge flow of a typical radial-filter design, this study demonstrates that currently available micropore filter technology is capable of removing the size range of bubbles that commonly pass through modern pump-oxygenator systems and should continue to be considered during extracorporeal circulation as a measure to improve patient safety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".