The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 127 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 35 of the 64 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Microfluidics: A New Tool for Modeling Cancer–Immune Interactions
Open accessAbstract
In recognition of the enormous potential of immunotherapies against cancer, research into the interactions between tumor and immune cells has accelerated, leading to the recent FDA approval of several drugs that reduce cancer progression. Numerous cellular and molecular interactions have been identified by which immune cells can intervene in the metastatic cascade, leading to the development of several in vivo and in vitro model systems that can recapitulate these processes. Among these, microfluidic technologies hold many advantages in terms of their unique ability to capture the essential features of multiple cell type interactions in three-dimensions while allowing tight control of the microenvironment and real-time monitoring. Here, we review current assays and discuss the development of new microfluidic technologies for immunotherapy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
20 Own interpretation · 12 No full text of the sources · 11 Partly supported · 6 Supported · 3 Supported so far · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Furthermore, cancer cells promoted macrophage proliferation[64].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [64] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Cell morphological observations; page unavailable) show a macrophage migrating toward bladder cancer cells in the microfluidic device, and the Results (Arg-1 expression in macrophages; page unavailable) report increased Arg-1 expression. Neither passage establishes that cancer cells promoted macrophage proliferation; migration and activation are different outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recently, immunotherapies have shown promising results for reducing metastasis in melanoma or kidney cancer patients[1, 2].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic models: developing immunotherapies against metastasis
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [1] source
The opening section describes immunotherapy as producing durable, sometimes complete tumor regression in patients with metastatic melanoma and kidney cancer. This supports the citing sentence’s broad characterization of promising results for reducing metastatic disease. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites [2] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Evidence of clinical activity for PD1 blockade” (page unavailable), the review describes promising tumour regressions and clinical responses in patients with melanoma and renal cancer, including patients with metastatic tumours. It does not establish that immunotherapy reduced the occurrence or spread of metastases, as distinct from treating existing cancer. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“They also showed that macrophages in co-culture expressed more Arginine-1, in an analogous manner to macrophage activation in the tumor microenvironment.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [48] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Results (‘Making up the experiment for data-drive’; page unavailable) describe co-culturing melanoma cells with mouse splenocytes and analyzing cell migration. Searches for Arginine-1, macrophage expression, and activation found no passage reporting increased Arginine-1 in co-cultured macrophages or comparing that response with activation in the tumor microenvironment. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“On one hand, there is evidence that immune cells have the capability to attenuate metastasis[54–59], which provides insight into how to restore or enhance their ability to combat cancer.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] source
- Supportedcites [55] source
The Introduction reports that CD8+ T cells maintained dormancy of disseminated melanoma cells in visceral organs in the mouse model, and that depleting them accelerated tumor outgrowth. This supports the claim that immune cells can attenuate metastasis. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [56] source
The paper reports that natural killer cells can inhibit metastasis in mice. In the passage labeled Abstract, mice receiving Cbl-b-deficient NK cells had fewer lung melanoma metastases, and the authors conclude that those NK cells inhibit the progression of lung and distant metastases. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [57] source
The Results section, “Tumor entrained neutrophils inhibit seeding in the pre-metastatic lung” (page unavailable), reports that depleting neutrophils increased metastatic burden and produced about three times as many lung metastatic events in tumor-bearing mice. This supports the claim that immune cells can attenuate metastasis, specifically tumor-entrained neutrophils in this model. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [58]
- Supportedcites [59] source
The paper reports that anti-CD47 treatment increased macrophage phagocytosis of leiomyosarcoma cells, and the neoadjuvant-treatment results report that it almost completely inhibited lung metastases in mice. This supports the broad claim that immune cells can help attenuate metastasis, in the context of antibody treatment in a mouse model. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This is particularly important as there is growing evidence that cancer cells communicate with their microenvironment[29], specifically with organ-specific cells[30], resulting in organ-selectivity in metastasis[31].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [29] source
Citation [29] is attached to the claim that cancer cells communicate with their microenvironment, not to the later claims about organ-specific cells or organ-selectivity. The passage on paracrine signalling loops between cancer cells, macrophages and endothelial cells supports that claim (passage [4]; page not provided). (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [30] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) invokes the seed-and-soil hypothesis to explain why tumors metastasize to particular organs. The Discussion (page unavailable) supports a narrower finding: breast cancer cells alter the brain microenvironment, which contributes to metastatic progression. The paper does not establish that communication with organ-specific cells causes organ selectivity across metastases. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Studies have shown that dormancy can be induced by endothelial derived factors[24], thus demonstrating the need for microfluidic models that recapitulate interactions between ECs and tumor cells, using for example µVNs.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [24] source
The Introduction identifies endothelial-derived thrombospondin-1 as a tumor suppressor, and the Results report that endothelial cells induced sustained quiescence in breast cancer cells. The Discussion specifies that stable microvasculature induces this quiescence via thrombospondin-1. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“One of the major current limitations of in vitro metastatic models is their lack of organ-specificity[28].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [28] source
In “Cancer cell odyssey in the metastatic cascade,” the paper calls the lack of organ-specific in vitro models a significant limitation of current systems. The “Microfluidic tools for in vitro cancer models” section likewise says that the extravasation assays discussed lack organ specificity. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recent studies are increasingly employing microvascular networks (µVNs)[21, 23, 24], where the permeability, architecture and diameters of vessels are more similar to those found in in vivo microvascular beds (Figure 2A) [21].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [21] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes recent development of perfusable 3D microvascular networks with a more physiologically relevant configuration, and the Discussion says their permeability is comparable to that of in vivo venules. The Results describe self-organized vessels with 8–96 μm lumens, but our copy does not compare those diameters with in vivo microvascular beds. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites [23] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not specified in our copy) describes a branched, lumenized vessel network whose heterogeneous diameters and morphology resemble tumor vasculature in vivo. This supports the architectural comparison, but the paper does not establish that the network’s permeability or vessel diameters are more similar to those of in vivo microvascular beds. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Partly supportedcites [24] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports that the authors grew robust three-dimensional microvascular networks, supporting this paper as an example of a study using such networks. Our copy does not establish that their vessels’ permeability, architecture, or diameters are more similar to in vivo microvascular beds, nor does it document an increasing trend in their use. No page number is available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Microfluidic assays have been designed to replicate certain aspects of several of these steps, such as EMT[13, 14], cancer cell invasion and adhesion[15–17], and intra-[18, 19] and extravasation[17, 20– 22] (see Text Box 3).”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] source
- Partly supportedcites [15] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion describes a microfluidic system that models circulating breast cancer cells adhering to vascular endothelium under flow, supporting the adhesion part of the citation. It does not describe an assay that models cancer-cell invasion or extravasation. EMT and intravasation are attached to other citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
- Supportedcites [18] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation is attached to intravasation, not to the sentence’s examples of EMT, adhesion, or extravasation. The Results section describes a 3D microfluidic assay with an endothelial monolayer that permits observation of tumor-cell intravasation. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Supportedcites [19] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The citation to this paper is attached to intravasation, not to EMT, adhesion, or extravasation. The Metastasis chip design and Discussion sections describe a microfluidic assay that models cancer-cell intravasation into engineered microvessels. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These studies first showed that immune-deficient interferon regulatory factor-8 (IRF-8) knockout mice develop more tumors with less immune cell infiltration than wild type animals[50], and subsequently used a microfluidic assay to investigate the underlying mechanism in greater detail.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [50] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The melanoma-growth section reports faster tumor growth and more lung metastatic foci in IRF-8 knockout mice, but does not establish that they developed more primary tumors. The immune-cell infiltration section reports fewer infiltrating T cells and dendritic cells in knockout tumors, while myeloid-derived suppressor cell infiltration was higher; the unqualified claim of less immune-cell infiltration misses that exception. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Specifically, they showed that immune spleen cells lacking IRF-8 do not migrate towards cancer cells, nor interact with them as efficiently as wild type immune cells[48–50], suggesting a mechanism to explain why IRF-8 knock-out cells fail to exert proper immune-surveillance leading to a heavier metastatic burden.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [48] source
The Abstract reports that only wild-type spleen cells established physical interactions with melanoma cells, while IRF-8 knockout cells showed poor reactivity. The Results (‘Making up the experiment for data-drive’) likewise report migration and clustering toward melanoma cells for wild-type cells, but no focused response by knockout cells. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [49] source
- Supportedcites [50] source
The Discussion reports that WT splenocytes crossed the microchannels toward the melanoma compartment, while IRF-8 KO cells were unable to move forward. The section on splenocyte migration also reports longer-lasting contact with melanoma cells for WT than IRF-8 KO splenocytes. The finding is supported in the paper’s B16.F10 melanoma microfluidic model. (LLM, conf=0.94)
direct- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Borderline substantial claim. It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although it was first observed that immune cells play an anti-tumorigenic role, it was later realized they can be “educated” by cancer cells to become tolerant to tumors and even promote tumor growth and metastasis[37].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [37] source
The Abstract says the tumour microenvironment polarizes recruited macrophages into ‘tumour-educated’ cells that promote tumour progression and metastasis. The Immune escape section describes how tumours alter immune-cell functions to avoid immune rejection, supporting the claim about tolerance in substance. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These µVNs represent a dramatic improvement over previous 2D extravasation models such as Boyden Transwell-chambers that consist of ECs seeded onto a permeable membrane inserted in a well-plate, since transwells do not allow for dynamic high resolution single cell imaging due to the long distance of the insert from the objective.”
- Also stated in: § Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade · plain
“In addition, µVNs replicate better the 3D vessel architecture and endothelial barrier function [21].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [21] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade · plain
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“While intravital imaging has proven extremely useful in the study of metastasis[6–7], it requires specialized expertise and equipment, and high image resolution is harder to attain in some visceral organs due to the depth of their location.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] source
- Could not verifycites [7] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction discusses expertise needed for microscopic inspection of plant pathogens, not intravital imaging. Searches for intravital imaging, metastasis, and depth-related limits on imaging visceral organs found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, neutrophils are known to assist with tumor cell extravasation following platelet aggregation around the tumor cell[60, 61].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] source
- Partly supportedcites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section ('Platelet-Derived TGFβ1 is Necessary for Metastasis In Vivo') reports tumor cells associated with platelets in blood vessels and evidence that platelet-derived TGFβ1 aids extravasation. Neither that passage nor the Discussion passages identify neutrophils as assisting extravasation; a search for 'neutrophils' found no supporting passage. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“PDMS can also adsorb small hydrophobic molecules[9], which can be problematic for drug screening studies.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic vs. traditional models for cancer and metastasis research
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] source
The citation is attached to the claim that PDMS takes up small hydrophobic molecules. The Introduction (Hydrophobic absorption; page unavailable) describes their partitioning into PDMS, and the Discussion (page unavailable) reports a substantial reduction in medium estrogen. The paper calls this absorption into the polymer bulk rather than surface adsorption. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Finally, future studies should analyze the role of several types of immune cells simultaneously, as their interplay has been shown to be critical for some steps of the metastatic cascade[60, 61].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Concluding Remarks
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] source
- Partly supportedcites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page unavailable) describes platelets shielding tumor cells from natural-killer-cell lysis, and the Discussion reports that platelet–tumor-cell signaling promotes metastatic seeding. These passages support a role for cellular interactions in metastasis, but they do not establish that interplay among several types of immune cells is critical to steps of the metastatic cascade. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The immune cell response is a spatially orchestrated process, occurring in a variety of different tissues (i.e. bone marrow, blood stream and target tissue), which can be captured in microfluidic models through spatial compartmentalization.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, some events of the metastatic cascade (e.g. intravasation) can be rare and thus difficult to image in vivobut this rate of occurrence can be more readily modulated in vitro.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic: modeling the metastatic cascade
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This study showed that CM from macrophage and myofibroblasts increased the migration of cancer cells. Interestingly, tumor necrosis factor- α (TNF-α) produced by macrophages counteracted the migration-promoting effects of myofibroblasts.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uniquely, the presence of microfluidic channels permits precise control of flow, allowing the study of many important biomechanical processes such as shear stress.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic vs. traditional models for cancer and metastasis research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, retrieving cells from microfluidic devices for subsequent biochemical studies is possible but not straightforward [6].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic vs. traditional models for cancer and metastasis research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that microfluidics systems are particularly powerful tools to replicate the metastatic environment and should thus be exploited to study cancer-immune cell interactions.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidic models: developing immunotherapies against metastasis
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, many immune cells exist under flow conditions in the bloodstream that can be uniquely recreated through precise control of flow in microfluidic systems.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Importantly, these studies demonstrated important differences between 2D and 3D, with tumor cells cultured in 3D spheroids showing a decreased production of TAA and HLA class I (as also observed in vivo)[47].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Microfluidics: modeling immune-cancer cell interactions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microfluidic systems offer the potential for high throughput, quantitative clinical analyses.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Outlook for future microfluidic applications in immunotherapy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microfluidic systems are uniquely positioned to facilitate the development of personalized medicine because of the small number of cells needed from the patient and the potential to obtain rapid and automated results.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Outlook for future microfluidic applications in immunotherapy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Microfluidic models can not only help characterize the immune-cancer cell interactions that have recently become interesting therapeutic targets, but also help in testing the efficacy of novel immunotherapies.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Concluding Remarks
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, these current “lab-on-a-chip” models are intended to facilitate time-consuming bench-top procedures, but are, after all, still “chips-in-a-lab”[86] that require external equipment (e.g. pumps, microscope) and much human intervention.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Outlook for future microfluidic applications in immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eventually, microfluidic systems could represent an important intermediate step, bridging current in vitro high throughput screens and animal studies and human clinical trials.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Concluding Remarks
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their tremendous experimental potential, to date, microfluidic studies have not been widely exploited to study cancer/immune cell interactions.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Outlook for future microfluidic applications in immunotherapy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, an opportunity exists to capitalize on the capability of microfluidic models to recapitulate interactions between cancer and immune cells as they occur in vivo, especially during metastatic spread.”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Concluding Remarks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Sackmann et al. estimated that 85% of microfluidic related publications are published in engineering, as opposed to clinical or biological journals, mostly as proof-of-principle studies[84].”
§ Microfluidics: A new tool for modeling cancer-immune interactions > Outlook for future microfluidic applications in immunotherapy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [84] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
No in vitro system, including microfluidic ones, can reproduce every aspect of in vivo complexity.
“Finally, care should be taken in extrapolating results from any in vitro study, including microfluidic ones, since they can never fully replicate all aspects of in vivo complexity.”
Citations
Cites
PD-1 and PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade to Treat Breast Cancer
Hartkopf, A. D., Taran, F., Wallwiener, M., Walter, C. B., Krämer, B., Grischke, E., & Brucker, S. Y. (2016) · Breast Care · doi:10.1159/000453569 · Cited by 30,989
The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy
Pardoll, D. M. (2012) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc3239 · Cited by 13,838 · cited 1×
“Recently, immunotherapies have shown promising results for reducing metastasis in melanoma or kidney cancer patients[1, 2].”
BackgroundThe origins and the future of microfluidics
Whitesides, G. M. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05058 · Cited by 9,687 · cited 1×
“Microfluidics is a rapidly expanding technology that relies on the use of small channels, ranging from tens to hundreds of micrometers in height or width for handling small fluid volumes[4].”
BackgroundMolecular Mechanisms of Stress-Responsive Changes in Collagen and Elastin Networks in Skin
Aziz, J., Shezali, H., Radzi, Z., Yahya, N. A., Abu Kassim, N. H., Czernuszka, J., & Rahman, M. T. (2016) · Skin Pharmacology and Physiology · doi:10.1159/000447017 · Cited by 7,323
Macrophage Diversity Enhances Tumor Progression and Metastasis
Qian, B., & Pollard, J. W. (2010) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.014 · Cited by 5,338 · cited 1×
“Second, drug-resistance related problems are also minimized, since immune cells are less likely to acquire drug resistance than cancer cells[39].”
BackgroundThe pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: the ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited
Fidler, I. J. (2003) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1098 · Cited by 4,686 · cited 1×
“This is particularly important as there is growing evidence that cancer cells communicate with their microenvironment[29], specifically with organ-specific cells[30], resulting in organ-selectivity in metastasis[31].”
BackgroundReconstituting organ-level lung functions on a chip
Huh, D., Matthews, B. D., Mammoto, A., Montoya-Zavala, M., Hsin, H. Y., & Ingber, D. E. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1188302 · Cited by 4,250 · cited 1×
“, an airliquid interface for mimicking the pulmonary airways[34]).”
BackgroundDissemination and growth of cancer cells in metastatic sites
Chambers, A. F., Groom, A. C., & MacDonald, I. C. (2002) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc865 · Cited by 4,018 · cited 1×
“These steps include an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), invasion, intravasation, transport of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the bloodstream, extravasation in the distant organ, and recolonization at the metastatic site[12] (Fig.”
BackgroundMicroenvironmental regulation of metastasis
Joyce, J. A., & Pollard, J. W. (2009) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc2618 · Cited by 3,684 · cited 1×
“This is particularly important as there is growing evidence that cancer cells communicate with their microenvironment[29], specifically with organ-specific cells[30], resulting in organ-selectivity in metastasis[31].”
BackgroundThe present and future role of microfluidics in biomedical research
Sackmann, E. K., Fulton, A. L., & Beebe, D. J. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13118 · Cited by 2,995 · cited 3×
“estimated that 85% of microfluidic related publications are published in engineering, as opposed to clinical or biological journals, mostly as proof-of-principle studies[84].”
BackgroundMethod
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–225 of 225
Paria, C. J. B., & de Lima, H. M. (2022) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.68422040214
dos Santos, E. B., & Gimenez, S. P. (2022) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.6842204024
Mendonça, M., dos Santos, M. R. P., Faria, C. C., Milanez, F. R., Scannavino, F. D. A., Godoy, W. F., Palácios, R. H. C., Finocchio, M. A. F., Paschoalino, C. A., Bazan, G. H., et al. (2022) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.68422040216
CONTROLE ADAPTATIVO USADO EM DOIS ELOS DE UM ROBÔ ELETROMECÂNICO DE CINCO GRAUS DE LIBERDADE
Riul, J. A., & Montenegro, P. H. D. M. (2022) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.6842204023
SEPARAÇÃO DE TÉRBIO E DISPRÓSIO A PARTIR DA TÉCNICA DE EXTRAÇÃO POR SOLVENTES
Vera, Y. M., Ivancko, I. N., & do Nascimento, J. M. B. (2022) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.68422040218
Hu, K. C., Chakrabarty, K., & Ho, T.-Y. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56255-1_1
Introduction on Personalized Immune-Oncology
Abadi, B., & Rezaei, N. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80962-1_286-1
The Intersection of Biomaterials, Tissue Engineering, and Immuno-oncology
Clevenger, A. J., VandenHeuvel, S. N., & Raghavan, S. A. (2022) · Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks · doi:10.1039/9781839166013-00342 · Cited by 1
Veith, I., Mencattini, A., Nurmik, M., Damei, I., Lansche, C., Brosseau, S., Gropplero, G., Corgnac, S., Filippi, J., Poté, N., et al. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.06.21.545960
The Microbiome and Cancer Unveiling the Microbe-Tumor Crosstalk
Tahawy, L. T. L. (2024) · ACTA SCIENTIFIC MICROBIOLOGY · doi:10.31080/asmi.2024.07.1411
Mishra, R., Jaiswal, S., Arora, A., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.09.22.677682
“The dynamics of cellular suspensions in microfluidic environments are important for understanding a variety of physiological and biomedical phenomena, including blood flow, immune cell trafficking, and drug delivery [1,2].”
Introduction on Personalized Immune-Oncology
Abadi, B., & Rezaei, N. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-00773-5_286
Khan, M. Z. U., Kafshgari, M. H., Dezfouli, A. B., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.25.696500
Li, Y.-J., Zhong, Y.-Y., Wang, W., Yu, C.-S., Zhang, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2026) · Nano Research · doi:10.26599/nr.2026.94908549 · Cited by 1
Study of the Metastatic Process of Circulating Tumour Cells by Organ-on-a-Chip In Vitro Models
Cognart, H. A. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/d17eb478z2f36z4cbdzaa01z0bd71e5c15e9
Inferring cell-cell interactions from quantitative analysis of microscopy images
Ronteix, G. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/d7d8111dz8487z47bbz890bzbfaa65fd24e1
Impact de dilutions homéopathiques sur la composante immunitaire du microenvironnement
Debasly, S. (2025) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/ae9e62f2ze4f2z4d38z9968z29df335ea7fd
Micromixer-controlled nanoparticle size distribution for biomolecular interaction readouts
Bütün, İ., Porsuk, M. H., Khan, M. D., et al. (2026) · Biosensors and Bioelectronics X · doi:10.1016/j.biosx.2026.100783
Therapeutic Targets and Signaling Mechanisms in 2D and 3D In Vitro Models of Osteoarthritis
Suresh, D., Raja, K., Eid, A., et al. (2026) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.70137
Next-generation immune models: bioinks, 3D bioprinting, and future directions
Joseph, J. P., Gugulothu, S. B., Nandi, D., & Chatterjee, K. (2026) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2026.04.017 · Cited by 1
New insights in tumor-on-a-chip models for studying cancer drug resistance
Wang, Y., Shi, L., Li, J., Zhang, X., Ren, J., Jia, Q., Lv, L., Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Yang, J., et al. (2026) · Pathology - Research and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.prp.2026.156562
Liu, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, X., Li, Y., zhu, A., Wang, M., Yao, H., & Liang, L. (2026) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2026.108438
Metadata
- Authors
- Boussommier-Calleja, A., Li, R., Chen, M. B., Wong, S. C., & Kamm, R. D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Kamm, Roger D.
- Venue
- Trends in Cancer
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-19
- ISSN
- 2405-8025 (ISSN-L)
- 2405-8033
- PMC
- PMC4743529
- OpenAlex
- W2279226389
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 127
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 1.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trends in cancer (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Cancer Research Institute
- National Cancer Institute (R33CA174550, U01CA202177)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Microfluidic and Bio-sensing Technologies
- Keywords
- microfluidics, tumor-immune interactions, tumor microenvironment, immunotherapy, metastasis, tumor-immune cell interactions, 3D cell culture, in vitro model, real-time monitoring, microfluidic assay
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
