MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286110778 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm5752

Microrobotic swarms for selective embolization

2022· article· en· W4286110778 on OpenAlexaff
Junhui Law, Xian Wang, Mengxi Luo, Liming Xin, Xingzhou Du, Wenkun Dou, Tiancong Wang, Guanqiao Shan, Yibin Wang, Peng Song, Xi Huang, Jiangfan Yu, Yu Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbolizationBiomedical engineeringMagnetorheological fluidMagnetic resonance imagingDrug deliveryTargeted drug deliveryFluidicsComputer scienceNanotechnologyMaterials scienceMedicineMagnetic fieldRadiologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inspired by the collective intelligence in natural swarms, microrobotic agents have been controlled to form artificial swarms for targeted drug delivery, enhanced imaging, and hyperthermia. Different from these well-investigated tasks, this work aims to develop microrobotic swarms for embolization, which is a clinical technique used to block blood vessels for treating tumors, fistulas, and arteriovenous malformations. Magnetic particle swarms were formed for selective embolization to address the low selectivity of the present embolization technique that is prone to cause complications such as stroke and blindness. We established an analytical model that describes the relationships between fluid viscosity, flow rate, branching angle, magnetic field strength, and swarm integrity, based on which an actuation strategy was developed to maintain the swarm integrity inside a targeted region under fluidic flow conditions. Experiments in microfluidic channels, ex vivo tissues, and in vivo porcine kidneys validated the efficacy of the proposed strategy for selective embolization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations131
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207