MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380373250 · doi:10.1002/htj.22913

Non‐Newtonian blood flow with magnetic nanoparticles in a W‐shaped stenosed arterial segment: A numerical study

2023· article· en· W4380373250 on OpenAlexaff
Pritam Giri, Indranil Saha Dalal, K. Muralidhar

Bibliographic record

VenueHeat Transfer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRheologyShear stressNewtonian fluidNon-Newtonian fluidBlood flowMaterials scienceMechanicsNanoparticleReynolds numberFlow (mathematics)Drug deliveryBiomedical engineeringMedicineComposite materialNanotechnologyPhysicsCardiologyTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Flow of blood, infused with magnetic nanoparticles, in a W‐shaped stenosed human arterial segment is studied numerically using a realistic non‐Newtonian blood rheology model. It is observed that the Newtonian model predicts less time to reach a steady state than the non‐Newtonian blood rheology model. An increased drug retention time at the target site with an increase in nanoparticle concentration is predicted. Detailed simulations further reveal that the skin friction coefficient does not increase significantly with the increase in nanoparticle concentration. Hence, it is anticipated from our study that the infusion of drug‐carrying nanoparticles in blood flow does not excessively enhance wall shear stress that may lead to arterial wall damage. An overall increase in heat transfer rates and wall shear stress at the stenosed section is seen with an increase in Reynolds number. The present study provides valuable information for designing computer‐assisted 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeat TransferSame topicNanofluid Flow and Heat TransferFrench-language works237,207