MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513707285 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1439-6

Left ventricular function: time-varying elastance and left ventricular aortic coupling

2016· review· en· W2513707285 on OpenAlexafffund
Keith R. Walley

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineVentricular functionCardiologyElastanceInternal medicineVentricular pressureHemodynamicsRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many aspects of left ventricular function are explained by considering ventricular pressure-volume characteristics. Contractility is best measured by the slope, Emax, of the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship. Ventricular systole is usefully characterized by a time-varying elastance (ΔP/ΔV). An extended area, the pressure-volume area, subtended by the ventricular pressure-volume loop (useful mechanical work) and the ESPVR (energy expended without mechanical work), is linearly related to myocardial oxygen consumption per beat. For energetically efficient systolic ejection ventricular elastance should be, and is, matched to aortic elastance. Without matching, the fraction of energy expended without mechanical work increases and energy is lost during ejection across the aortic valve. Ventricular function curves, derived from ventricular pressure-volume characteristics, interact with venous return curves to regulate cardiac output. Thus, consideration of ventricular pressure-volume relationships highlight features that allow the heart to efficiently respond to any demand for cardiac output and oxygen delivery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207