ArticleBioImpacts : BI2024
Design and implementation of a lab-on-a-chip for assisted reproductive technologies.
Article in BioImpacts : BI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The microfluidic device is highly optimized to remove oocytes from the cumulus-corona cell mass surrounding them. Additionally, it effectively captures and immobilizes the oocytes, aiding in assessing their quality and facilitating the injection of sperm into the oocyte. In this study, a novel microfluidic chip was designed and manufactured using conventional soft lithography methods. Methods: This research proposes the utilization of a microfluidic chip as a substitute for the conventional manual procedures involved in oocyte denudation, trapping, and immobilization. The microfluidic chip was modeled and simulated using COMSOL Multiphysics® 5.2 software to optimize and enhance its design and performance. The microfluidic chip was fabricated using conventional injection molding techniques on a polydimethylsiloxane substrate by employing soft lithography methods. Results: A hydrostatic force was applied to guide the oocyte through predetermined pathways to eliminate the cumulus cells surrounding the oocyte. The oocyte was subsequently confined within the designated trap region by utilizing hydraulic resistance along the paths and immobilized by applying vacuum force. Conclusion: The application of this chip necessitates a lower level of operator expertise compared to enzymatic and mechanical techniques. Moreover, it is feasible to continuously monitor the oocyte's state throughout the procedure. There is a reduced need for cultural media compared to more standard approaches.
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.