A methodological approach for quantifying and characterizing the stability of agitated saline contrast: implications for quantifying intrapulmonary shunt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agitated saline contrast echocardiography is often used to determine blood flow through intrapulmonary arteriovenous anastomoses (Q̇IPAVA). We applied indicator dilution theory to time-acoustic intensity curves obtained from a bolus injection of hand-agitated saline contrast to acquire a quantitative index of contrast mass. Using this methodology and an in vitro model of the pulmonary circulation, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of transit time and gas composition [air vs. sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)] on contrast conservation between two detection sites separated by a convoluted network of vessels. We hypothesized that the contrast lost between the detection sites would increase with transit times and be reduced by using contrast bubbles composed of SF6 Changing the flow and/or reducing the volume of the circulatory network manipulated transit time. Contrast conservation was measured as the ratio of outflow and inflow contrast masses. For air, 53.2 ± 3.4% (SE) of contrast was conserved at a transit time of 9.25 ± 0.02 s but dropped to 16.0 ± 1.0% at a transit time of 10.17 ± 0.06 s. Compared with air, SF6 contrast conservation was significantly greater (P < 0.05) with 114.3 ± 2.9% and 73.7 ± 3.3% of contrast conserved at a transit time of 10.39 ± 0.02 s and 13.46 ± 0.04 s, respectively. In summary, time-acoustic intensity curves can quantify agitated saline contrast, but loss of contrast due to bubble dissolution makes measuring Q̇IPAVA across varying transit time difficult. Agitated saline composed of SF6 is stabilized and may be a suitable alternative for Q̇IPAVA measurement.
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) | 0.001 | 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".