Comparison between Diastolic Subendocardial Tissue Pressures Measured Directly or Calculated from Pressure-Flow Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in intramyocardial tissue pressure modulate the relationship between coronary pressure and flow during the cardiac cycle. The present study compared the relation between measured and calculated diastolic subendocardial tissue pressure and coronary pressure at zero flow in anesthetized dogs after modulation of either coronary sinus (i.e. Fogarty catheter) or left ventricular intracavity (i.e. volume loading) pressure. Experiments were conducted in anesthetized, instrumented dogs; coronary pressure flow relations were constructed during pharmacologic vasodilatation and intramyocardial tissue pressure was measured using micromanometer pressure sensors. Elevated coronary sinus pressures did not affect subendocardial pressure-flow relations signifying that diastolic tissue pressure within this layer is the effective coronary back pressure. Higher left ventricular intracavity pressure did not affect either diastolic subendocardial tissue pressure or pressure flow relations within this layer. Results show a direct linear relation (y = 1.106x - 0.652; r2 = 0.59. P = 0.001) between measured and calculated diastolic subendocardial tissue pressure and coronary pressure at zero-flow over a wide range of pressures after either LV systemic or coronary sinus pressure modulation. Knowledge of back pressure in the subendocardium is useful for the evaluation of efficacy of cardiac interventions on myocardial perfusion particularly at the level of the microcirculation.
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) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".