MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1782783105 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.4.1636

Wave-intensity analysis: a new approach to coronary hemodynamics

2000· article· en· W1782783105 on OpenAlexaff
Yi-Hui Sun, Todd J. Anderson, Kim H. Parker, John V. Tyberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineVentricleHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations118
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207