MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE OF A NEW AXIAL FLOW PUMP FOR LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST

2002· article· en· W2030981106 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Carrier, André Garon, L.Conrad Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxial-flow pumpVentricular assist deviceBlood flowCardiologyAxial compressorInternal medicineThrombusMedicineMechanicsHeart failurePhysicsVariable displacement pump

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Axial flow pumps are being developed and applied for left ventricular assistance. We are studying a new, smaller and more energy efficient axial flow pump that could improve the current technology of left ventricular assistance. Method. A new axial flow pump was implanted through canulation of the left ventricular apex and the descending thoracic aorta of 3 pigs. The flow pump was set at 10,000 rpm and systemic blood samples from the animals were harvested every 30 minutes for analysis of the free hemoglobin. Results. Systemic blood pressure averaged 67±4 mmHg throughout the experiment. Plasma free hemoglobin levels averaged 42±9g/L before initiation of support with the axial flow pump and 43±11, 45±21, 68 46, 70±1, 105±45 and 127±35 dl respectively 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes during left ventricular support with the axial flow pump at 10,000 rpm. After 4 hours of left ventricular support, an autopsy of the pig heart showed a clear left ventricular cavity without any formation of thrombus. Conclusion. Our preliminary experience with a new design of axial flow pump suggests that the blood pump does not create a significant degree of hemolysis during a short period of left ventricular support. The long-term effect of the new axial flow pump needs to be studied.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207