ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2009
Experimental validation of a theoretical model of cytokine capture using a hemoadsorption device.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling and Hemofiltration Treatment of Acute Inflammation.Processes (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Modeling competitive cytokine adsorption dynamics within hemoadsorption beads used to treat sepsis.Journal of chromatography. A · 2011Article
- Selective improvement of tumor necrosis factor capture in a cytokine hemoadsorption device using immobilized anti-tumor necrosis factor.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2011Article
- IL-6 adsorption dynamics in hemoadsorption beads studied using confocal laser scanning microscopy.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sepsis, a systemic inflammatory response in the presence of an infection, is characterized by overproduction of inflammatory mediators called cytokines. Removal of these cytokines using an extracorporeal hemoadsorption device is a potential therapy for sepsis. We are developing a cytokine adsorption device (CAD) filled with microporous polymer beads and have previously published a mathematical model which predicts the time course of cytokine removal by the device. The goal of this study was to show that the model can experimentally predict the rate of cytokine capture associated with key design and operational parameters of the CAD. We spiked IL-6, IL-10, and TNF into horse serum and perfused it through an appropriately scaled-down CAD and measured the change in concentration of the cytokines over time. These data were fit to the mathematical model to determine a single model parameter, Gamma( i ), which is only a function of the cytokine-polymer interaction and the cytokine effective diffusion coefficient in the porous matrix. We compared Gamma( i ) values, which by definition should not change between experiments. Our results indicate that the Gamma( i ) value for a specific cytokine was statistically independent of all other parameters in the model, including initial cytokine concentration, flow rate, serum reservoir volume, CAD size, and bead size. Our results also indicate that competitive adsorption of cytokines and other middle-molecular weight proteins, which is neglected in the model, does not affect the rate of removal of a given cytokine. The model of cytokine capture in the CAD developed in this study will be integrated with a systems model of sepsis to simulate the progression of sepsis in humans and to develop a therapeutic CAD design and intervention protocol that improves patient outcomes in sepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.