Postischemic functional recovery in immature hearts is influenced by performance index and assessment technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the in vivo immature heart, conflicting results are reported for postischemic functional recovery. This study determines whether interpretations of functional recovery are influenced by the contractile performance index (systolic pressure, developed pressure, and maximum rate of systolic pressure increase per unit time) reported or the assessment technique (isovolumetric and variable-volume) utilized. In neonatal pigs (n = 6) on cardiopulmonary bypass, each performance index was examined using both assessment techniques before myocardial ischemia and at 15, 30, and 60 min of reperfusion. With the use of the isovolumetric technique, all performance indexes had significantly different recovery. With the use of the variable-volume assessment technique, recovery of systolic pressure was significantly better than the other indexes. When recovery was compared between the two assessment techniques, systolic pressure recovered significantly better when assessed using the variable-volume technique. For each performance index, the correlation between isovolumetric and variable-volume techniques was positive before ischemia but negative during reperfusion, suggesting that the assessment techniques identified conflicting postischemic contractile performances. Thus both the contractile performance index reported and the assessment technique employed are ultimately important in interpreting postischemic functional recovery in the immature heart.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".