Fluid absorption by skin tissue during intradermal injections through hollow microneedles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hollow microneedles are an emerging technology for delivering drugs and therapeutics, such as vaccines and insulin, into the skin. Although the benefits of intradermal drug delivery have been known for decades, our understanding of fluid absorption by skin tissue has been limited due to the difficulties in imaging a highly scattering biological material such as skin. Here, we report the first real-time imaging of skin tissue at the microscale during intradermal injections through hollow microneedles, using optical coherence tomography. We show that skin tissue behaves like a deformable porous medium and absorbs fluid by locally expanding rather than rupturing to form a single fluid filled cavity. We measure the strain distribution in a cross section of the tissue to quantify local tissue deformation, and find that the amount of volumetric expansion of the tissue corresponds closely to the volume of fluid injected. Mechanically restricting tissue expansion limits fluid absorption into the tissue. Our experimental findings can provide insights to optimize the delivery of drugs into skin for different therapeutic applications, and to better model fluid flow into biological tissue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".