Wave reflection effects in the central circulation of American alligators (<i>Alligator mississippiensis</i>): what the heart sees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large central compliance is thought to dominate the hemodynamics of all vertebrates except birds and mammals. Yet large crocodilians may adumbrate the avian and mammalian condition and set the stage for significant wave transmission (reflection) effects, with potentially detrimental impacts on cardiac performance. To investigate whether crocodilians exhibit wave reflection effects, pressures and flows were recorded from the right aorta, carotid artery, and femoral artery of six adult, anesthetized American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) during control conditions and after experimentally induced vasodilation and constriction. Hallmarks of wave reflection phenomena were observed, including marked differences between the measured profiles for flow and pressure, peaking of the femoral pressure pulse, and a diastolic wave in the right aortic pressure profile. Pulse wave velocity and peripheral input impedance increased with progressive constriction, and thus changes in both the timing and magnitude of reflections accounted for the altered reflection effects. Resolution of pressure and flow waves into incident and reflected components showed substantial reflection effects within the right aorta, with reflection coefficients at the first harmonic approaching 0.3 when constricted. Material properties measured from isolated segments of blood vessels revealed a major reflection site at the periphery and, surprisingly, at the junction of the truncus and right aorta. Thus, while our results clearly show that significant wave reflection phenomena are not restricted to birds and mammals, they also suggest that rather than cope with potential negative impacts of reflections, the crocodilian heart simply avoids them because of a large impedance mismatch at the truncus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".