MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W636791562 · doi:10.3791/52719

Controlled Microfluidic Environment for Dynamic Investigation of Red Blood Cell Aggregation

2015· article· en· W636791562 on OpenAlexafffund
Rym Mehri, Catherine Mavriplis, Marianne Fenech

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMicrocirculationHemorheologyRheologyRed blood cellShear rateWhole bloodMaterials scienceVelocimetryErythrocyte aggregationMicrofluidicsNon-Newtonian fluidBiomedical engineeringChemistryNanotechnologyComposite materialMechanicsBiochemistryMedicineSurgeryThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood, as a non-Newtonian biofluid, represents the focus of numerous studies in the hemorheology field. Blood constituents include red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets that are suspended in blood plasma. Due to the abundance of the RBCs (40% to 45% of the blood volume), their behavior dictates the rheological behavior of blood especially in the microcirculation. At very low shear rates, RBCs are seen to assemble and form entities called aggregates, which causes the non-Newtonian behavior of blood. It is important to understand the conditions of the aggregates formation to comprehend the blood rheology in microcirculation. The protocol described here details the experimental procedure to determine quantitatively the RBC aggregates in microcirculation under constant shear rate, based on image processing. For this purpose, RBC-suspensions are tested and analyzed in 120 x 60 µm poly-dimethyl-siloxane (PDMS) microchannels. The RBC-suspensions are entrained using a second fluid in order to obtain a linear velocity profile within the blood layer and thus achieve a wide range of constant shear rates. The shear rate is determined using a micro Particle Image Velocimetry (µPIV) system, while RBC aggregates are visualized using a high speed camera. The videos captured of the RBC aggregates are analyzed using image processing techniques in order to determine the aggregate sizes based on the images intensities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207