DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE OF A NEW AXIAL FLOW PUMP FOR LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".