Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical properties like shape, volume and size affect the dynamics of biological systems. Along these lines, we focus on the topological properties of biological fluids and their biochemical and physiological outcomes. We take as a paradigmatic example the salivary fluid and describe how its topological features may affect the physiopathology of the oral cavity. Topological approaches assess the general properties of saliva, ignoring small-scale physical details such as density, flow rate, stiffness, viscosity. Specifically, the mucin aggregates scattered in the salivary fluid can be tackled in terms of topological holes, i.e., vortical clusters that modify the direction, flow, impulse, local rate-of-change and velocity of saliva. While the current methodological approaches are inclined to remove the effects of impurities assessing systems as homogeneous structures, we argue that the occurrence of mucins breaks up the salivary fluid’s homogeneity, leading to unexpected biophysical modifications. We suggest that every collected salivary sample is not reliable for accurate clinical and experimental investigation, since it displays highly local as well as variable chemical, physical and biological features, not reflecting the current physiological state of the oral cavity. Therefore, the assessment of a single salivary sample is not fully reproducible and cannot provide information about the biophysical, enzymatic and microbiological content of the whole saliva. In sum, the very topological features of the saliva - such as volume, shape, antipodal cells, vortex area, whirling fluid mass, segmentation, discretization, triangulation, node numbering - produce unnoticed biological consequences and network connectivity features with intriguing operational implications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".