ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2016
Comparison of Chip Inlet Geometry in Microfluidic Devices for Cell Studies.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid Prototyping of Microfluidic Devices with Stereolithographic 3D Printing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- High-Resolution DLP 3D Printing for Complex Curved and Thin-Walled Structures at Practical Scale: Archimedes Microscrew.Micromachines · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Polymer Science and Fabrication Processes for Enhanced Microfluidic Applications: An Overview.Micromachines · 2024Review
- Computational and experimental studies of a cell-imprinted-based integrated microfluidic device for biomedical applications.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Biosensors-on-Chip: An Up-to-Date Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Micro-fabricated devices integrated with fluidic components provide an in vitro platform for cell studies best mimicking the in vivo micro-environment. These devices are capable of creating precise and controllable surroundings of pH value, temperature, salt concentration, and other physical or chemical stimuli. Various cell studies such as chemotaxis and electrotaxis can be performed by using such devices. Moreover, microfluidic chips are designed and fabricated for applications in cell separations such as circulating tumor cell (CTC) chips. Usually, there are two most commonly used inlets in connecting the microfluidic chip to sample/reagent loading tubes: the vertical (top-loading) inlet and the parallel (in-line) inlet. Designing this macro-to-micro interface is believed to play an important role in device performance. In this study, by using the commercial COMSOL Multiphysics software, we compared the cell capture behavior in microfluidic devices with different inlet types and sample flow velocities. Three different inlets were constructed: the vertical inlet, the parallel inlet, and the vertically parallel inlet. We investigated the velocity field, the flow streamline, the cell capture rate, and the laminar shear stress in these inlets. It was concluded that the inlet should be designed depending on the experimental purpose, i.e., one wants to maximize or minimize cell capture. Also, although increasing the flow velocity could reduce cell sedimentation, too high shear stresses are thought harmful to cells. Our findings indicate that the inlet design and flow velocity are crucial and should be well considered in fabricating microfluidic devices for cell studies.
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.