MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605331105 · doi:10.1142/s2339547817500029

Building an experimental model of the human body with non-physiological parameters

2017· article· en· W2605331105 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph M. Labuz, Christopher Moraes, David Mertz, Brendan M. Leung, Shuichi Takayama

Bibliographic record

VenueTECHNOLOGY · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Printing in Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Threat Reduction AgencyNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringBanting Research Foundation
KeywordsHuman bodyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New advances in engineering and biomedical technology have enabled recent efforts to capture essential aspects of human physiology in microscale, in-vitro systems. The application of these advances to experimentally model complex processes in an integrated platform — commonly called a ‘human-on-a-chip (HOC)’ — requires that relevant compartments and parameters be sized correctly relative to each other and to the system as a whole. Empirical observation, theoretical treatments of resource distribution systems and natural experiments can all be used to inform rational design of such a system, but technical and fundamental challenges (e.g. small system blood volumes and context-dependent cell metabolism, respectively) pose substantial, unaddressed obstacles. Here, we put forth two fundamental principles for HOC design: inducing in-vivo-like cellular metabolic rates is necessary and may be accomplished in-vitro by limiting O 2 availability and that the effects of increased blood volumes on drug concentration can be mitigated through pharmacokinetics-based treatments of solute distribution. Combining these principles with natural observation and engineering workarounds, we derive a complete set of design criteria for a practically realizable, physiologically faithful, five-organ millionth-scale ([Formula: see text]) microfluidic model of the human body.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTECHNOLOGYSame topic3D Printing in Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207