Wave-intensity analysis: a new approach to coronary hemodynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 10 anesthetized dogs, we measured high-fidelity left circumflex coronary (P(LCx)), aortic (P(Ao)), and left ventricular (P(LV)) pressures and left circumflex velocity (U(LCx); Doppler) and used wave-intensity analysis (WIA) to identify the determinants of P(LCx) and U(LCx). Dogs were paced from the right atrium (control 1) or right ventricle by use of single (control 2) and then paired pacing to evaluate the effects of left ventricular contraction on P(LCx) and U(LCx). During left ventricular isovolumic contraction, P(LCx) exceeded P(Ao), paired pacing increasing the difference. Paired pacing increased DeltaP(X) (the P(LCx)-P(Ao) difference at the P(Ao)-P(LV) crossover) and average dP(LCx)/dt (P < 0.0001 for both). During this time, WIA identified a backward-going compression wave (BCW) that increased P(LCx) and decreased U(LCx); the BCW increased during paired pacing (P < 0.0001). After the aortic valve opened, the increase in P(Ao) caused a forward-going compression wave that, when it exceeded the BCW, caused U(LCx) to increase, despite P(LV) and (presumably) elastance continuing to increase. Thus WIA identifies the contributions of upstream (aortic) and downstream (microcirculatory) effects on P(LCx) and U(LCx).
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it