Negative wave reflections in pulmonary arteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pulmonary arterial branching pattern suggests that the early systolic forward-going compression wave (FCW) might be reflected as a backward-going expansion wave (BEW). Accordingly, in 11 open-chest anesthetized dogs we measured proximal pulmonary arterial pressure and flow (velocity) and evaluated wave reflection using wave-intensity analysis under low-volume, high-volume, high-volume + 20 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and hypoxic conditions. We defined the reflection coefficient R as the ratio of the energy of the reflected wave (BEW [-]; backward-going compression wave, BCW [+]) to that of the incident wave (FCW [+]). We found that R = -0.07 +/- 0.02 under low-volume conditions, which increased in absolute magnitude to -0.20 +/- 0.04 (P < 0.01) under high-volume conditions. The addition of PEEP increased R further to -0.26 +/- 0.02 (P < 0.01). All of these BEWs were reflected from a site ~3 cm downstream. During hypoxia, the BEW was maintained and a BCW appeared (R = +0.09 +/- 0.03) from a closed-end site ~9 cm downstream. The normal pulmonary arterial circulation in the open-chest dog is characterized by negative wave reflection tending to facilitate right ventricular ejection; this reflection increases with increasing blood volume and PEEP.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".