Mechanics of Microneedle-Based Fluid Injection into Skin Tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hollow microneedles are a promising alternative to conventional drug delivery techniques such as oral drug administration and hypodermic injections, and are used for delivering drugs and therapeutics into the skin. Hollow microneedles can improve patient compliance and potentially reduce the required drug dose due to the dose-sparing effect of the skin. However, the mechanics of fluid flow into the skin have not been visualized mainly because the skin is a highly scattering biological material. Here, we report the results from ex-vivo injection experiments into excised porcine skin tissue using hollow microneedles and introduce the use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for real-time imaging of skin tissue at the micro-scale during intradermal injections. The OCT images are analyzed to measure the distribution of strain in cross-sections of the tissue and to compute correlation maps showing that the skin tissue behaves like a deformable porous medium and absorbs fluid by locally expanding. Our experimental results, relating tissue deformation to fluid flow, can guide theoretical models of fluid flow into biological porous medium and help optimize microneedle-based intradermal drug delivery systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".