ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
A Modular Computational Approach for Assessing Active and Passive Force Contributions in Interstitial Lymphatic Fluid Uptake.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe lymphatic system regulates fluid homeostasis, yet the relative roles of active vessel pumping, external mechanical forces, and lymphatic vessel/interstitium material properties on lymphatic uptake remain unclear. We sought to quantify how each factor affects lymphatic drainage.
methodWe developed a bond-graph-based computational framework for modelling initial lymphatic uptake. Two networks, a simple 7-branch and a complex 19-branch architecture, were constructed to evaluate active pumping, passive external forces, and their combination. We varied vessel compliance, interstitial permeability, anchoring filament stiffness, interstitial compliance, and interstitial thickness, and performed global sensitivity analysis to identify dominant and interacting parameters. Model outputs were compared with published experimental data to assess physiological plausibility.
resultsSimulated uptake rates were consistent with published ranges, supporting the model's physiological validity. Network topology exerted strong control: the 19-branch network consistently produced lower flow than the 7-branch network. Vessel compliance increased cycle-mean flow in the 7-branch network (+11% active; + 17.8% concurrent) but reduced flow in the 19-branch network (-4.3% active; - 9.3% concurrent), indicating that structural losses in larger networks can outweigh distensibility benefits. Under passive forcing, interstitial permeability dominated drainage; very low permeability nearly eliminated flow. Anchoring filament stiffness, interstitial compliance, and thickness had negligible effects. Sensitivity analyses showed compliance governed active and concurrent force cases, whereas permeability dominated passive flow, with additional permeability/compliance interactions emerging in the 19-branch network.
conclusionBranching topology and material properties fundamentally influence lymphatic drainage. Active pumping is particularly important in highly branched architectures, while interstitial properties mainly modulate passive flow. The framework enables quantitative exploration of regional physiological and pathological differences.
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.