An Experimentally‐Derived Wall Shear Rate Equation for Use in Microvascular Preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Obtaining the experimental data needed to accurately calculate wall shear rates is challenging and time consuming. Thus, many have quantified shear rate from experimentally‐derived mean blood velocity (Vmean) and arteriolar diameter (D). These pseudoshear rate (Vmean/D) data pose two problems: 1) they imply a fixed shape for the velocity profile with a velocity ratio (Vratio = Vmax/Vmean) of 1.6 or 2, and 2) they are not specific to local shear rate changes at the cell‐free layer (CFL)‐wall interface. To date, wall shear rates from experimentally‐derived velocity profiles for branching arteriolar networks in skeletal muscle have not been calculated. Methods Using intravital video microscopy, we imaged branching arteriolar networks in the in situ rat gluteus maximus (GM) preparation (N=6) and characterized in vivo red blood cell velocity (RBC) profiles at each arteriolar segment (n=39) using our previously described “streak length” method. Our objectives were to: 1) calculate wall shear rate from in vivo RBC velocity profiles in GM arterioles for a wide range of diameters, 2) provide an experimentally‐derived and straightforward wall shear rate estimation function for use in skeletal muscle microvascular studies (and possibly in other tissues), and 3) compare our calculated wall shear rates to conventional wall shear rate estimations. From the velocity profiles, we measured: mean velocities, thickness of the CFL, axial flow velocity at the outer edge of the RBC column, and centerline RBC velocity and its relation to mean blood velocity. We used these data to derive an experiment‐based wall shear rate function. Results Arteriolar diameters ranged from 0.021 to 0.115 mm. CFL data ranged from 0.001 to 0.0043 mm and were positively correlated with arteriolar diameter (r 2 =0.64). Our novel wall shear rate equation was similar to experimental wall shear rates (using edge RBC velocities/CFL). Calculated experimental wall shear rates ranged from 1317 to 3684 sec −1 , did not correlate with arteriolar diameter, and in all cases were greater than pseudoshear rates calculated using either a fixed Vratio of 1.6 or 2, or our previously characterized diameter‐dependent Vratio function. Conclusion In this study, we provided a straightforward wall shear rate equation, derived from the relationship of experimental hemodynamic parameters with arteriolar diameter, that yields values similar to our experiment‐based values. This equation does not assume a velocity ratio, is calculated at the CFL‐wall interface, and can easily be adapted for use in studies investigating wall shear rate. The equations provided in this study are adaptable for use with other velocity measurement techniques in order to obtain wall shear rate and stress (when plasma viscosity is known) in skeletal muscle preparations for a wide range of arterioles. Support or Funding Information Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) CGS‐D Scholarship awarded to BKA, NSERC grant #R4218A03 awarded to DNJ, and NSERC grant #R4081A03 awarded to DG.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".