Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29457313›Full record

ArticleMicrocirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994)2018

Modeling the hematocrit distribution in microcirculatory networks: A quantitative evaluation of a phase separation model.

Peter M Rasmussen, Timothy W Secomb, Axel R Pries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. : 1994), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Biomicrofluidics · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter M RasmussenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6849-0788
Timothy W SecombDepartment of Physiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Axel R PriesDepartment of Physiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

MICROVASCULAR BLOOD RHEOLOGY &RED BLOOD CELL MECHANICSR01HL034555 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI SECOMB, TIMOTHY W. · 1988 to 2020
$3.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL034555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTheoretical models are essential tools for studying microcirculatory function. Recently, the validity of a well-established phase separation model was questioned and it was claimed that it produces problematically low hematocrit predictions and lack of red cells in small diameter vessels. We conducted a quantitative evaluation of this phase separation model to establish common ground for future research.

methodsModel predictions were validated against a comprehensive database with measurements from 4 mesenteric networks. A Bayesian data analysis framework was used to integrate measurements and network model simulations into a combined analysis and to model uncertainties related to network boundary conditions as well as phase separation model parameters. The model evaluation was conducted within a cross-validation scheme.

resultsUnlike the recently reported results, our analysis demonstrated good correspondence in global characteristics between measurements and predictions. In particular, predicted hematocrits for vessels with small diameters were consistent with measurements. Incorporating phase separation model parameter uncertainties further reduced the hematocrit validation error by 17% and led to the absence of red-cell-free segments. Corresponding model parameters are presented as alternatives to standard parameters.

conclusionsConsistent with earlier studies, our quantitative model evaluation supports the continued use of the established phase separation model.

Indexed as

HematocritMicrocirculationModels, TheoreticalAnimalsBayes TheoremErythrocytesHumansMicrovesselsModels, BiologicalBayesian inferenceflow simulationmicrocirculatory measurementsphase separation effectquantitative model evaluation

Identifiers

PMID29457313
PMCPMC6024080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.