MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2241249333 · doi:10.1051/ject/2000324184

HeartSaver VAD: A Totally Implantable Ventricular Assist Device. Results of In Vivo Studies

2000· article· en· W2241249333 on OpenAlexafffund
Tofy Mussivand, Paul J. Henry, Roy G. Masters, Wilbert J. Keon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ExtraCorporeal Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersIndustry CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousVentricular assist deviceBiomedical engineeringCardiologySurgeryHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the most widely utilized ventricular assist devices (VADs) require percutaneous connections and are located either externally (e.g., Thoratec, Abiomed) or intra-abdominally (e.g., Novacor, TCI). These attributes have been implicated in a variety of complications (infection, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, etc.). To address these concerns, a totally implantable VAD that requires no percutaneous connections and can be implanted in the left hemi-thorax has been developed. The developed device has undergone in vivo evaluation as part of the design and development process. A total of 43 implants in the bovine model, with 5 device versions, have been conducted between July 1992 and February 2000. These studies successfully have demonstrated several important aspects of the developed device, including 1) feasibility of a totally implantable system; 2) capability of the device to support a dysfunctional heart; and 3) ability of the device to provide flows up to 10 L/min in a physiological setting. The studies to date have played a vital role in the design and development process as well as demonstrating the feasibility of a totally implantable intrathoracic VAD. Based on these studies, design optimization was conducted, resulting in the development of the pre-clinical version of the device in preparation for clinical trials.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ExtraCorporeal TechnologySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207