ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
From Geometry to Flow Allocation: A Physics-Based Framework for Interpretable Microvascular Hemodynamics.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anastomotic angle and flow allocation change together in end-to-side junctions, complicating interpretation of angle-dependent wall shear. We used MITOS Flow Lab, a two-dimensional D2Q9 two-relaxation-time lattice-Boltzmann environment, to examine this coupling in steady, rigid-walled, Newtonian models at Re ≈ 91. Angles of 30-120° were compared under equal outlet pressures and at approximately matched branch-flow fractions of 0.25 and 0.21, achieved with angle-specific static outlet-pressure offsets. Under equal outlet pressures, the branch-flow fraction decreased from 0.356 to 0.151 across this angle range, while the minimum normalized signed recipient-floor shear increased from 0.140 to 0.450. Matching flow allocation substantially reduced angle-associated variation in this endpoint and in the sub-toe response, whereas sub-heel and sub-ostial responses remained angle dependent under the adjusted boundary conditions. This qualitative contrast persisted when the lumen resolution was increased from 32 to 64 nodes for the 0.25 target, although minimum-shear attenuation changed from approximately 83% to 74%. The 0.21 target was examined only on the production grid. These experiments demonstrate that the interpretation of angle-associated shear depends on the flow-allocation condition used for comparison. They do not identify a boundary-independent geometric effect or a causal mediation fraction. Absolute values and attenuation magnitudes remain sensitive to discretization and have not been independently validated. These controlled comparisons provide a framework for interpreting angle-associated shear together with achieved flow allocation and the specified outlet conditions.
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.