ArticleProteomics2026
Optimization of Microfluidic Geometry for Extracellular Vesicle Capture Using an Automated Parallel Pattern Search.
Article in Proteomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Bioengineering of Extracellular Vesicle Platforms in Cardiovascular Medicine.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidic affinity-based capture of extracellular vesicles (EVs) holds great promise for disease diagnostics and monitoring therapeutic EV production. However, optimizing microfluidic channel geometries for efficient EV capture remains understudied due to the effort required to experimentally test numerous designs. To overcome this, we developed an automated parallel pattern search (PPS) optimizer integrating Python, COMSOL Multiphysics, and high-performance computing. We applied this approach to optimize triangular micropillar array geometries by parameterizing periodic unit cells and maximizing simulated particle capture efficiency. Surprisingly, the highest EV capture was not achieved by maximizing the number of pillars and surface area. Instead, designs with slightly larger, more widely spaced pillars promoted EV contact by enabling slower particles to follow the contours of the pillars more closely. We validated these findings experimentally using bioreactor-produced EVs and microchannels functionalized with anti-CD63 antibodies. EVs captured in the best and worst designs were quantified using fluorescence plate reading and eluted for nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), confirming a significant increase in capture efficiency with the optimized design. These results highlight the power of automated microfluidic optimization to advance EV isolation technologies and demonstrate a practical strategy for improving device performance in this rapidly growing field.
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.