The effect of Ventricular Assist Devices on cerebral autoregulation: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The insertion of Ventricular Assist Devices is a common strategy for cardiovascular support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. This study sought to determine the impact of ventricular assist devices on the dynamic relationship between arterial blood pressure and cerebral blood flow velocity. METHODS: A sample of 5 patients supported with a pulsatile ventricular assist device was compared with 5 control patients. Controls were matched for age, co-morbidities, current diagnosis and cardiac output state, to cases. Beat-to-beat recordings of mean arterial pressure and cerebral blood flow velocity, using transcranial Doppler were obtained. Transfer function analysis was performed on the lowpass filtered pressure and flow signals, to assess gain, phase and coherence of the relationship between mean arterial blood pressure and cerebral blood flow velocity. These parameters were derived from the very low frequency (0.02-0.07 Hz), low frequency (0.07-0.2 Hz) and high frequency (0.2-0.35 Hz). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in gain and phase values between the two groups, but the low frequency coherence was significantly higher in cases compared with controls (mean ± SD: 0.65 ± 0.16 vs 0.38 ± 0.19, P = 0.04). The two cases with highest coherence (~0.8) also had much higher spectral power in mean arterial blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Pulsatile ventricular assist devices affect the coherence but not the gain or phase of the cerebral pressure-flow relationship in the low frequency range; thus whether there was any significant disruption of cerebral autoregulation mechanism was not exactly clear. The augmentation of input pressure fluctuations might contribute in part to the higher coherence observed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".