Cell Migration Research Based on Organ-on-Chip-Related Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microfluidic devices have been widely used for cell migration research over the last two decades, owing to their attractive features in cellular microenvironment control and quantitative single-cell migration analysis. However, the majority of the microfluidic cell migration studies have focused on single cell types and have configured microenvironments that are greatly simplified compared with the in-vivo conditions they aspire to model. In addition, although cell migration is considered an important target for disease diagnosis and therapeutics, very few microfluidic cell migration studies involved clinical samples from patients. Therefore, more sophisticated microfluidic systems are required to model the complex in-vivo microenvironment at the tissue or organ level for cell migration studies and to explore cell migration-related clinical applications. Research in this direction that employs organ-on-chip-related approaches for cell migration analysis has been increasingly reported in recent years. In this paper, we briefly introduce the general background of cell migration and organ-on-chip research, followed by a detailed review of specific cell migration studies using organ-on-chip-related approaches, and conclude by discussing our perspectives of the challenges, opportunities and future directions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".