Use of a Pulsatile Ventricular Assist Device (Berlin Heart EXCOR) and an Interventional Lung Assist Device (Novalung) in an Animal Model
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
Pulsatile ventricular assist devices (VADs) are used in pediatric patients mainly as a bridge to heart transplantation. If severe respiratory failure occurs, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is currently the treatment of choice. ECMO has the potential for severe complications. Interventional lung assist (iLA) devices, e.g., the Novalung, are used in patients with isolated lung failure. This study aimed to show the feasibility of the combined use of the EXCOR VAD (10 ml and 30 ml blood pumps) and the Novalung. There were two separate experiments within this study. First, a bench test was carried out to analyze pressure and flow through both devices. Second, 10 kg and 30 kg pigs received support with the VAD and iLA in series. Pressures and flow were measured systemically before and after the iLA. Flow was unaffected by the iLA. The mean arterial pressure was reduced (mean of 13 mm Hg) by the iLA. There were no obvious difficulties observed within the interaction of VAD and iLA. The combined use of both devices is feasible and able to provide sufficient perfusion pressures. Oxygenation and CO2 clearance was effectively supported by the iLA. Patients with myocardial and respiratory failure may benefit from this setup.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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