Systemic venous circulation. Waves propagating on a windkessel: relation of arterial and venous windkessels to systemic vascular resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with arterial hemodynamics, there has been relatively little study of venous hemodynamics. We propose that the venous system behaves just like the arterial system: waves propagate on a time-varying reservoir, the windkessel, which functions as the reverse of the arterial windkessel. During later diastole, pressure increases exponentially to approach an asymptotic value as inflow continues in the absence of outflow. Our study in eight open-chest dogs showed that windkessel-related arterial resistance was approximately 62% of total systemic vascular resistance, whereas windkessel-related venous resistance was only approximately 7%. Total venous compliance was found to be 21 times larger than arterial compliance (n = 3). Inferior vena caval compliance (0.32 +/- 0.015 ml x mmHg(-1) x kg(-1); mean +/- SE) was approximately 14 times the aortic compliance (0.023 +/- 0.002 ml x mmHg(-1) x kg(-1); n = 8). Despite greater venous compliance, the variation in venous windkessel volume (i.e., compliance x windkessel pulse pressure; 7.8 +/- 1.1 ml) was only approximately 32% of the variation in aortic windkessel volume (24.3 +/- 2.9 ml) because of the larger arterial pressure variation. In addition, and contrary to previous understanding, waves generated by the right heart propagated upstream as far as the femoral vein, but excellent proportionality between the excess pressure and venous outflow suggests that no reflected waves returned to the right atrium. Thus the venous windkessel model not only successfully accounts for variations in the venous pressure and flow waveforms but also, in combination with the arterial windkessel, provides a coherent view of the systemic circulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".