RV filling modulates LV function by direct ventricular interaction during mechanical ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During mechanical ventilation, phasic changes in systemic venous return modulate right ventricular output but may also affect left ventricular function by direct ventricular interaction. In 13 anesthetized, closed-chest, normal dogs, we measured inferior vena cava flow and left and right ventricular dimensions and output during mechanical ventilation, during an inspiratory hold, and (during apnea) vena caval constriction and abdominal compression. During a single ventilation cycle preceded by apnea, positive pressure inspiration decreased caval flow and right ventricular dimension; the transseptal pressure gradient increased, the septum shifted rightward, reflecting an increased left ventricular volume (the anteroposterior diameter did not change); and stroke volume increased. The opposite occurred during expiration. Similarly, the maneuvers that decreased venous return shifted the septum rightward, and left ventricular volume and stroke volume increased. Increased venous return had opposite effects. Changes in left ventricular function caused by changes in venous return alone were similar to those during mechanical ventilation except for minor quantitative differences. We conclude that phasic changes in systemic venous return during mechanical ventilation modulate left ventricular function by direct ventricular interaction.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".