MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rotary Blood Pumps for Cardiac Assistance: A “Must”?

2004· review· en· W2072661803 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Organs · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuous flowReliability (semiconductor)Ventricular assist deviceBlood flowBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceHeart failureMedicineEngineeringCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventricular Assist Devices (VADs) were developed following the observation that most end-stage heart failure patients only required left heart support for survival. The trend toward left VAD implantation instead of a TAH has actually contributed to the development of nonpulsatile rotational devices. This article intends to evaluate the current and future technology of continuous flow pumps. Various issues pertaining to the long-term effects of continuous blood flow, biocompatibility of axial flow pumps, and the safety and reliability of such devices need to be addressed. Some of the advantages of rotary blood pumps include their small size, ease of implantation, and encouraging low infection rates. Certain issues such as automatic flow control, device components durability, and hemocompatibility remain unresolved. The quest for an ideal device combining optimal efficiency, ease of anatomical fit, and perfect bioacceptance, continues. Rotary blood pumps are not yet a "must."

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.240 · 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