Controlling bead and cell mobility in a recirculating hanging-drop network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, beads or cells). Experiments with both beads and cells in cell culture medium initially resulted in particle stagnation, which was suggestive of a pseudo-no-slip boundary condition at the ALI. Transmission electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering measurements of the ALI suggested that aggregation of submicron-scale cell-culture-medium components is the cause of the pseudo-no-slip boundary condition. We used the finite element method to study the forces on particles at the ALI and to optimize HDN design (drop aperture) and operation (drop height) parameters. Based on this analysis, we report a phase diagram delineating the conditions for free flow or stagnation of particles at the ALI of hanging drops. Using our experimental setup with 3.5 mm drop apertures, we conducted particle flow experiments while actuating drop heights. We confirmed the ability to control the flow or stagnation of particles by actuating the height of hanging drops: a drop height over 300 μm led to particle stagnation and a drop height under 300 μm allowed for particle flow. This particle-flow control, combined with the ease of integrating scaffold-free organ models (microtissues or organoids) in HDNs, constitutes the basis for an experimental setup enabling the control of the residence time of single cells around 3D organ models.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".