MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142432909 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00936.2006

Wave intensity analysis of left ventricular filling: application of windkessel theory

2007· article· en· W2142432909 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Flewitt, Tracy N. Hobson, Jiun Wang, Clifton R. Johnston, Nigel G. Shrive, Israel Belenkie, Kim H. Parker, John V. Tyberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)CardiologyVentricular fillingIntensity (physics)Internal medicineSuctionMechanicsBlood pressureVolume (thermodynamics)Pressure gradientMedicinePhysicsDiastoleThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend our recently published windkessel-wave interpretation of vascular function to the wave intensity analysis (WIA) of left ventricular (LV) filling dynamics by separating the pressure changes due to the windkessel from those due to traveling waves. With the use of LV compliance, the change in pressure due solely to LV volume changes (windkessel pressure) can be isolated. Inasmuch as the pressure measured in the cardiovascular system is the sum of its windkessel and wave components (excess pressure), it can be substituted into WIA, yielding the isolated wave effects on LV filling. Our study of six open-chest dogs demonstrated that once the windkessel effects are removed from WIA, the energy of diastolic suction is 2.6 times greater than we previously calculated. Volume-related changes in pressure (i.e., the windkessel or reservoir effect) must be considered first when wave motion is analyzed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207