ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Surface-active microrobots can propel through blood faster than inert microrobots.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Task-Oriented Biomedical Microrobots: Access, Working Environment, Actuation, Body Design, Detection and Control.Micromachines · 2026Review
- Selective Magnetic Field Generation Method for Effective Manipulation of Two-Dimensional Magnetic Microrobots Using a Triad of Electromagnetic Coils.Micromachines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microrobots that can move through a network of blood vessels have promising medical applications. Blood contains a high volume fraction of blood cells, so in order for a microrobot to move through the blood, it must propel itself by rearranging the surrounding blood cells. However, swimming form effective for propulsion in blood is unknown. This study shows numerically that a surface-active microrobot, such as a squirmer, is more efficient in moving through blood than an inert microrobot. This is because the surface velocity of the microrobot steers the blood cells laterally, allowing them to propel themselves into the hole they are digging. When the microrobot size is comparable to a red blood cell or when the microrobot operates under a low Capillary number, the puller microrobot swims faster than the pusher microrobot. The trend reverses under considerably smaller microrobot sizes or high Capillary number scenarios. Additionally, the swimming speed is strongly dependent on the hematocrit and magnetic torque used to control the microrobot orientation. A comparative analysis between the squirmer and Janus squirmer models underscores the extensive applicability of the squirmer model. The obtained results provide new insight into the design of microrobots propelled efficiently through blood, paving the way for innovative medical applications.
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.