ArticleMicromachines2026
Red Blood Cell Deformability in Microfluidic Constrictions Under Flow and Wall Contact.
Article in Micromachines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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 devices are widely used for cell manipulation, but the effects of physical contact between cells and microchannel walls are not well understood. This study examines how such contact influences the behaviour of red blood cells (RBCs) during controlled manipulation. RBCs were driven through a narrow microchannel constriction (3.6 × 3.0 µm in cross-section and 2500 µm in length), enabling precise application of mechanical load. A pump system allowed accurate control of flow conditions, ranging from complete immobilisation to defined shear stress by adjusting flow rates. Under immobilised conditions, the recovery time constant of RBCs increased with longer loading durations, consistent with previous studies. However, when shear stress was introduced, recovery dynamics changed significantly. Notably, a 30-fold difference in recovery time constant was observed between a 5 s immobilisation and a 5 s load applied at a flow speed of 0.5 mm/s. Furthermore, the rapid elastic recovery typically occurring within approximately 0.1 s after unloading was suppressed under flow conditions. These results demonstrate that viscous interactions between channel walls and surrounding fluid play a critical role in determining cellular responses during microfluidic manipulation.
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.