ArticleACS biomaterials science & engineering2024
Mechanical Perspective on Increasing Brush Cytology Yield.
Article in ACS biomaterials science & engineering, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of a Cytobrush for Sampling the Ear Canal of Dogs With Otitis Externa.Veterinary dermatology · 2026Article
- Mucosal washes are useful for sampling intestinal mucus-associated microbiota despite low biomass.Gut microbes · 2025Article
- Lipidomic profiling of human bile distinguishes cholangiocarcinoma from benign bile duct diseases with high specificity and sensitivity: a prospective descriptive study.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Performance of large language models in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant biliary stricture.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brush cytology is a sampling technique extensively used for mucosal surfaces, particularly to identify malignancies. A sample is obtained by rubbing the brush bristles over the stricture or lesion several times until cells are trapped. Brush cytology detection rate varies, with malignancy confirmed in 15-65% of cases of adenocarcinoma-associated biliary strictures and 44-80% of cases of cholangiocarcinoma. Despite the widespread use of brush cytology, there is no consensus to date defining the optimal biliary brushing parameters for the collection of suspicious lesions, such as the number of passes, brushing rate, and force applied. The aim of this work is to increase the brush cytology diagnostic yield by elucidating the underlying mechanical phenomena. First, the mechanical interactions between the brush bristles and sampled tissue are analyzed. During brushing, mucus and detached cells are transferred to the space between the bristles through the capillary rise and flow eddies. These mass transfer mechanisms and their dependence on mucus rheology as a function of pH, brush displacement rate, and bristle geometry and configuration are examined. Lastly, results from
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.