Outflow Control for Avoiding Atrial Suction in a Continuous Flow Total Artificial Heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous flow blood pumps, such as axial flow and centrifugal pumps, have been gaining interest as circulatory devices for total artificial hearts (TAHs) because of their smaller size and simpler structure compared to pulsatile pumps. However, continuous flow pumps are more prone to atrial wall suction than pulsatile pumps are. Sudden increases in flow rate to meet changes in physiological demand, especially in the left pump, often cause atrial wall suction. In this study, a control algorithm to prevent atrial wall suction from occurring in the left atrium by controlling the rotational speed of the right pump, instead of reducing the cardiac output of the left pump, was developed and investigated. The method was tested in a mock circulatory system and in acute animal experiments with adult goats. Two centrifugal pumps were used to totally replace the circulatory function of the natural heart. The cardiac output of each pump was determined independently by a control algorithm running on a computer connected through a serial interface to the pump driving units. Results showed that left atrial wall suction could be prevented using this method, and that the method could be performed simultaneously with physiological control of the artificial heart.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".