MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900007997 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.776

A model of tear-film breakup with continuous mucin concentration and viscosity profiles

2018· article· en· W2900007997 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohar Dey, Atul S. Vivek, Harish N. Dixit, Ashutosh Richhariya, James J. Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBreakupMucinMaterials scienceViscosityBoundary layerMechanicsDiffusionAqueous solutionThermodynamicsChemistryComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an alternative to the prevailing framework for modelling tear-film breakup, which posits a layered structure with a mucus layer next to the cornea and an aqueous layer on top. Experimental evidence shows continuous variation of mucin concentration throughout the tear film, with no distinct boundary between the two layers. Thus, we consider a continuous-viscosity model that replaces the mucus and aqueous layers by a single liquid layer with continuous profiles of mucin concentration and viscosity, which are governed by advection–diffusion of mucin. The lipids coating the tear film are treated as insoluble surfactants as previously, and slip is allowed on the ocular surface. Using the thin-film approximation, we carry out linear stability analysis and nonlinear numerical simulations of tear-film breakup driven by van der Waals attraction. Results show that for the same average viscosity, having more viscous material near the ocular surface stabilizes the film and prolongs the breakup time. Compared with the layered models, the continuous-viscosity model predicts film breakup times that are in better agreement with experimental data. Finally, we also suggest a hydrodynamic explanation for how pathological loss of membrane-associated mucins may lead to faster breakup.

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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207