Estimation of Maximum Ventricular Elastance Under Assistance With a Rotary Blood Pump
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maximum ventricular elastance is a reliable index for assessing the cardiac function from changes in its pressure-volume relationship. The advantage of this index is that it can represent the contractility of either unassisted hearts or native hearts assisted with rotary blood pumps. However, there are situations in which changes in the ventricular load required for the conventional estimation method might be risky. For example, in a bridge-to-recovery the cardiac function should also be continuously observed after the implantation of a rotary blood pump. In this article, we present the results of the estimation of the maximum elastance with in vivo data using the parameter optimization method, which is a single-beat estimation method. The estimated values for the normal cardiac function (6.8 +/- 0.6, 4.5 +/- 0.9, 4.2 +/- 1.8 mm Hg/mL) were significantly different from those for the low cardiac function (3.2 +/- 1.5, 1.9 +/- 1.0, 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm Hg/mL) from the data of the three animals that were analyzed. Besides, the maximum elastance values were independent of the pump rotational speed. These results indicate that this index might be useful for the detection of the myocardial recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".