Postnatal neonatal myocardial adaptation is associated with loss of tolerance to tachycardia: a simultaneous invasive and noninvasive assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doppler studies at rest suggest left ventricular (LV) diastolic function rapidly improves from the neonate to infant. Whether this translates to its response to hemodynamic challenges is uncertain. We sought to explore the impact of early LV maturation on its ability to tolerate atrial tachycardia. As tachycardia reduces filling time, we hypothesized that the neonatal LV would be less tolerant of atrial tachycardia. Landrace cross piglets of two age groups (1-3 days; NPs; 14-17 days, YPs; n = 7/group) were instrumented for an atrial pacing protocol (from 200 to 300 beats/min) and assessed by invasive monitoring and echocardiography. NPs maintained their LV output and blood pressure, whereas YPs did not. Although negative dP/dt in NPs at baseline was lower than that of YPs (-1,599 ± 83 vs. -2,470 ± 226 mmHg/s, respectively, P = 0.007), with increasing tachycardia negative dP/dt converged between groups and was not different. Both groups had similar preload reduction during tachycardia; however, NPs maintained shortening fraction while YPs decreased (NPs: 35.4 ± 1.4 vs. 31.8 ± 2.2%, P = 0.35; YPs: 31.4 ± 0.8 vs. 22.9 ± 0.8%, P < 0.001). Contractility measures did not differ between groups. Peak LV twist and untwisting rate also did not differ; however, NPs tended to augment LV twist through increased apical rotation and YPs through increasing basal rotation (P = 0.009). The NPs appear more tolerant of atrial tachycardia than the YPs. They have at least similar diastolic performance, enhanced systolic performance, and different LV twist mechanics, which may contribute to improved tachycardia tolerance of NPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".