Importance Of Shock Phase Duration And Voltage Of Negative Shock Phase In Biphasic - Sequential Defibrillation In Pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have found that sequential pulse or biphasic pulse shocks are superior to monophasic shocks for defibrillation. Combining these two modalities may further enhance defibrillation efficacy. The importance of shock phase duration and voltage of the negative phase for combined biphasic-sequential pulse shocks were determined in random order in two experiments using anaesthetized pigs. The first experiment compared defibrillation efficacy using sequential pulse alone to biphasic shocks alone and biphasic-sequential shocks, with the leading edge voltages of the negative phase, being 35 % and 50% of the peak voltage of the positive phase for the biphasic shocks. The second experiment determined the effects of different phase durations of combined shocks: a) 3-7, 3-7 ms; b) 5-5, 5-5 ms; c) 7-3, 7-3 ms and d) 10, 10 ms; e) 4, 4 ms. Defibrillation thresholds were significantly lower for biphasic-sequential in both 35 % and 50 % groups compared to sequential and biphasic alone. Significantly lower energies were obtained with the 5-5, 5-5 ms and the 7-3, 7-3 ms phase durations compared to either of the other phase durations. In conclusion, the present mlts suggest that lower voltage negative phase may reduce the energy requirements necessary for defibrillation. In addition, when pulse duration is the same the phase duration is an important contributor to the decrease in the energy required for defibrillation. Incorporation of a biphasicsequential pulse with an equal or longer first phase followed by shorter phase duration as well as lower voltage negative phase may be important in the design of future generations of implantable devices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".