Experimental aortic regurgitation in rats under echocardiographic guidance.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Experimental aortic regurgitation (AR) induced by retrograde perforation of the aortic leaflets has been used as an animal model of volume overload, but causes high mortality. In the past, AR was induced under hemodynamic guidance, but echocardiography can be used to guide the investigator as well as grade AR severity and monitor left ventricular function. The study aim was to assess the value of echocardiography in experimental AR in rats. METHODS: Sixty-six Wistar rats (bodyweight 250-275 g) underwent perforation of the aortic leaflets via a right transcarotid approach to induce moderate to severe AR. Transthoracic echocardiographic guidance was used to assess catheter location, degree of AR, ventricular function and complications. RESULTS: Echocardiographic images were easily obtained and of excellent quality (M-mode, two-dimensional and complete Doppler evaluation). Catheter location, movement and guidance during aortic valve perforation were straightforward, and AR gradation and ventricular function easily assessed. Procedural complications and causes of death were identified. Had hemodynamic criteria been used, 24% of AR cases would have been misgraded. With echocardiography, the overall mortality rate was 17% (<10% in the last 25 animals). CONCLUSION: Echocardiographic guidance is mandatory for protocols of experimental AR. Using this technique, the procedure is simplified, and is more accurate, more reproducible and safer for the animals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it