Mechanical interaction among cells in hydrogel-based microfluidic assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogels are widely used in cell cultures and microfluidic organ-on-chip devices as a mimic for an extracellular matrix. Soft and porous, they provide a gentle scaffold for the cell colonies to develop into properly structured tissues and organoids. A key factor in this process is the transmission of forces through the hydrogel, originating from the flowing perfusate and propagating toward and among the cells. Such forces serve as mechanical cues in the proliferation and differentiation of cells and in their aggregation into functional organoids. In this work, we use a poroelastic model to study the mechanical interaction among cells that is mediated by the hydrogel. The model predicts that closely spaced cells induce the formation of prominent “tension ribbons” within the hydrogel, actively pulling neighboring cells together and prompting the development of mutual protrusions. In larger cellular arrays, the deformation patterns become highly heterogeneous, strongly dependent on the relative positions of individual cells. These insights provide valuable guidance for optimizing the design and operational parameters of organ-on-chip devices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".