Evidence for left ventricular constraint during open heart surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The degree to which the lungs and other mediastinal structures constrain the heart during cardiac surgery is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the degree of constraint to left ventricular (LV) filling that is present during cardiac surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Central venous (CVP) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressures (PCWP), and an index of LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) - LV area, transesophageal echocardiography - were measured before and after sternotomy, after volume loading, after pericardiotomy, and before and after sternal closure following the clinically indicated procedure in 12 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PCWP and estimated transmural LVEDP (PCWP-CVP) were plotted against the LV area. RESULTS: In all patients, the difference between PCWP and estimated transmural LVEDP-LV area relations over the full range of LV areas was substantial, indicating the presence of important constraint to filling. Even at small LV areas, when transmural LVEDP approached zero, PCWP was almost always greater than 10 mmHg. Because transmural LVEDP approached zero when areas were smallest, transmural LVEDP-LV area relations were judged to be more plausible than the corresponding PCWP-LV area relations. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable constraint to cardiac filling is effected by the lungs and other mediastinal structures. This constraint must be considered when assessing LV filling pressure - PCWP is not a reliable measure of LV preload in these circumstances.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".