MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106326626 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.90.4.1481

Static and dynamic operating characteristics of a pericardial balloon

2001· article· en· W2106326626 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas R. Hamilton, Gwyneth deVries, John V. Tyberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalloonPericardiumBalloon catheterCatheterMaterials sciencePericardiectomyBiomedical engineeringMedicineCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, we developed a balloon transducer to measure the constraint of the pericardium (i.e., pericardial pressure) on the surface of the heart. It was validated physiologically in that it was shown to measure a pressure equal to the difference between the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure measured before and after pericardiectomy at the same left ventricular volume. To define its static operating characteristics, we loaded the balloon nonuniformly with weights that covered fractions of the balloon surface and found that the balloon accurately recorded the average stress if the stress was applied over at least 23% of its surface. To test its performance when curved, we placed it in large and small cylinders (minimum diameter 31 mm) and found that the balloon accurately recorded the stress. To define its dynamic operating characteristics, we applied sinusoidal stresses and found that its frequency response was limited only by that of the connecting catheter. When better dynamic response is required, we introduce a micromanometer-tipped catheter to obtain a unity-gain frequency response that is flat to 200 Hz.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207