MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588405017 · doi:10.2174/1874192401004010168

Time Constants of Cardiac Function and Their Calculations

2010· article· en· W1588405017 on OpenAlexaff
Xufang Bai, Quan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Cardiovascular Medicine Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreloadAfterloadMedicineDiastoleCardiologyVentricular functionTime constantConstant (computer programming)Internal medicineComputer scienceHemodynamicsBlood pressureElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Left ventricular diastolic time constant, Tau, is the most established index to describe left ventricular diastolic function. However, the lack of a practical method for the measurement of Tau has been an uncomfortable reality which formerly kept all but a few researchers from making use of it. Recently, the non invasive calculation of Tau in an echo lab was accomplished through formulas developed by universal mathematical method. Tau was first suggested by the fact that left ventricular diastole is an active process, and we can therefore predict that there must be some other time constants which can be used to describe other active movement of ventricular muscles during isovolumic period. Similar mathematical manipulation was employed to develop formulas for "the other Tau(s)". Such Tau(s) represent new sets of indexes useful for the description of cardiac function. They are expected to be the most established indices given the fact Tau is revealing the power of ventricular muscles without interference from either preload or afterload.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Cardiovascular Medicine JournalSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207