MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617085841 · doi:10.1177/0267659117709921

Development of a high fidelity pressurized porcine beating heart simulator for cardiac surgery training

2017· article· en· W2617085841 on OpenAlexaff
Igo B. Ribeiro, Janet M.C. Ngu, Fraser D. Rubens

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryTraining (meteorology)FidelitySimulation trainingSimulationAnesthesiaCardiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Development of a high-fidelity cardiac surgery simulator (CSS) requires integration of a heart model with a mock cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit that can provide feedback to mimic the pathophysiology of cardiac surgery. However, the cost of commercially available simulators precludes regular use. We describe steps in the construction of a high-fidelity CSS that integrates a pulsatile paracorporeal ventricular-assist device (Pulse-VAD) and a commercially available CPB simulator. METHODS/RESULTS: simulator, as well as Pulse-VAD cannulation (fitted with inflatable balloons) of both ventricles. After each simulation run, the team addressed key issues to derive successive model changes through consensus. Key modifications included: a) pressure maintenance of the cardiac chambers (removal of lungs, Pulse-VAD cannulation sites at the left pulmonary artery and vein, double ligation of arch vessels); b) high-fidelity beating of both ventricles (full Pulse-VAD bladder filling and ensuring balloon neck placement at the valvular plane) and c) reproducible management of porcine anatomy (management of porcine aorta, ligation of left azygous vein and shortened ascending thoracic aortic segment). CONCLUSION: A CSS can be prepared at low cost, with integration into a high-fidelity CPB simulator with a novel beating heart component. This setup can be used in teaching the basics of CPB techniques and complex surgical procedures. Future work is needed to validate this model as a simulation instrument.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerfusionSame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207