SynthesisCells2022
Advances in Concentration Gradient Generation Approaches in a Microfluidic Device for Toxicity Analysis.
Synthesis in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thermoplastic elastomer based microfluidic gradient generator for cell culture and drug testing.Biomedical microdevices · 2026Article
- Microfluidic mixing probe: generating multiple concentration-varying flow dipoles.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Design Optimization of a 3D Microfluidic Channel System for Biomedical Applications.3D printing and additive manufacturing · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to analyze the development and functionality of microfluidic concentration gradient generators (CGGs) for toxicological evaluation of different biological organisms. We searched articles using the keywords: concentration gradient generator, toxicity, and microfluidic device. Only 33 of the 352 articles found were included and examined regarding the fabrication of the microdevices, the characteristics of the CGG, the biological model, and the desired results. The main fabrication method was soft lithography, using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) material (91%) and SU-8 as the mold (58.3%). New technologies were applied to minimize shear and bubble problems, reduce costs, and accelerate prototyping. The Christmas tree CGG design and its variations were the most reported in the studies, as well as the convective method of generation (61%). Biological models included bacteria and nematodes for antibiotic screening, microalgae for pollutant toxicity, tumor and normal cells for, primarily, chemotherapy screening, and Zebrafish embryos for drug and metal developmental toxicity. The toxic effects of each concentration generated were evaluated mostly with imaging and microscopy techniques. This study showed an advantage of CGGs over other techniques and their applicability for several biological models. Even with soft lithography, PDMS, and Christmas tree being more popular in their respective categories, current studies aim to apply new technologies and intricate architectures to improve testing effectiveness and reduce common microfluidics problems, allowing for high applicability of toxicity tests in different medical and environmental models.
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.