A review of microfluidic approaches for investigating cancer extravasation during metastasis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metastases, or migration of cancers, are common and severe cancer complications. Although the 5-year survival rates of primary tumors have greatly improved, those of metastasis remain below 30%, highlighting the importance of investigating specific mechanisms and therapeutic approaches for metastasis. Microfluidic devices have emerged as a powerful platform for drug target identification and drug response screening and allow incorporation of complex interactions in the metastatic microenvironment as well as manipulation of individual factors. In this work, we review microfluidic devices that have been developed to study cancer cell migration and extravasation in response to mechanical (section ‘Microfluidic investigation of mechanical factors in cancer cell migration’), biochemical (section ‘Microfluidic investigation of biochemical signals in cancer cell invasion’), and cellular (section ‘Microfluidic metastasis-on-a-chip models for investigation of cancer extravasation’) signals. We highlight the device characteristics, discuss the discoveries enabled by these devices, and offer perspectives on future directions for microfluidic investigations of cancer metastasis, with the ultimate aim of identifying the essential factors for a ‘metastasis-on-a-chip’ platform to pursue more efficacious treatment approaches for cancer metastasis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it