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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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