MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092198701 · doi:10.1080/03091900600687672

Finite element modeling of the thoracic aorta: including aortic root motion to evaluate the risk of aortic dissection

2008· article· en· W2092198701 on OpenAlexaff
Carsten J. Beller, Michel R. Labrosse, Mano J. Thubrikar, Francis Robicsek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Engineering & Technology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAortic Disease and Treatment Approaches
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAortic archAortic dissectionAortic rootAscending aortaDisplacement (psychology)AortaCardiologyMedicineAortic valveInternal medicineThoracic aortaDissection (medical)Aortic pressureAnatomyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We propose that the aortic root motion plays an important role in aortic dissection. METHODS AND RESULTS: A finite element model of the aortic root, arch and branches of the arch was built to assess the influence of aortic root displacement and pressure on the aortic wall stress. The largest stress increase due to aortic root displacement was found at approximately 2 cm above the top of the aortic valve. There, the longitudinal stress increased by 50% to 0.32 MPa when 8.9 mm axial displacement was applied in addition to 120 mmHg luminal pressure. A similar result was observed when the pressure load was increased to 180 mmHg without axial displacement. CONCLUSIONS: Both aortic root displacement and hypertension significantly increase the longitudinal stress in the ascending aorta, which could play a decisive role in the development of various aortic pathologies, including aortic dissection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations54
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Engineering & TechnologySame topicAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesFrench-language works237,207