ReviewMicromachines2022
Circuit-Based Design of Microfluidic Drop Networks.
Review in Micromachines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Flushing System for Post-Processing in Microfluidic Device Fabrication.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Seamless integration of CMOS microsensors into open microfluidic systems.Lab on a chip · 2025Article
- Periodic Flows in Microfluidics.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2024Review
- On the design and fabrication of nanoliter-volume hanging drop networks.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2024Article
- Network Topology of Wing Veins in Hawaiian Flies Mitigates Allometric Dilemma.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Circuit analogy unveiled the haemodynamic effects of the posterior cross vein in the wing vein networks.PloS one · 2024Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Micro and Smart Devices and Systems.Micromachines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidic-drop networks consist of several stable drops-interconnected through microfluidic channels-in which organ models can be cultured long-term. Drop networks feature a versatile configuration and an air-liquid interface (ALI). This ALI provides ample oxygenation, rapid liquid turnover, passive degassing, and liquid-phase stability through capillary pressure. Mathematical modeling, e.g., by using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), is a powerful tool to design drop-based microfluidic devices and to optimize their operation. Although CFD is the most rigorous technique to model flow, it falls short in terms of computational efficiency. Alternatively, the hydraulic-electric analogy is an efficient "first-pass" method to explore the design and operation parameter space of microfluidic-drop networks. However, there are no direct electric analogs to a drop, due to the nonlinear nature of the capillary pressure of the ALI. Here, we present a circuit-based model of hanging- and standing-drop compartments. We show a phase diagram describing the nonlinearity of the capillary pressure of a hanging drop. This diagram explains how to experimentally ensure drop stability. We present a methodology to find flow rates and pressures within drop networks. Finally, we review several applications, where the method, outlined in this paper, was instrumental in optimizing design and operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.