The caval sphincter in cetaceans and its predicted role in controlling venous flow during a dive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sphincter on the inferior vena cava can protect the heart of a diving mammal from overload when elevated abdominal pressures increase venous return, yet sphincters are reported incompetent or absent in some cetacean species. We previously hypothesized that abdominal pressures are elevated and pulsatile in fluking cetaceans, and that collagen is deposited on the diaphragm according to pressure levels to resist deformation. Here, we tested the hypothesis that cetaceans generating high abdominal pressures need a more robust sphincter than those generating low pressures. We examined diaphragm morphology in seven cetacean and five pinniped species. All odontocetes had morphologically similar sphincters despite large differences in collagen content, and mysticetes had muscle that could modulate caval flow. These findings do not support the hypothesis that sphincter structure correlates with abdominal pressures. To understand why a sphincter is needed, we simulated the impact of oscillating abdominal pressures on caval flow. Under low abdominal pressures, simulated flow oscillated with each downstroke. Under elevated pressures, a vascular waterfall formed, greatly smoothing flow. We hypothesize that cetaceans maintain high abdominal pressures to moderate venous return and protect the heart while fluking, and use their sphincters only during low-fluking periods when abdominal pressures are low. We suggest that pinnipeds, which do not fluke, maintain low abdominal pressures. Simulations also showed that retrograde oscillations could be transmitted upstream from the cetacean abdomen and into the extradural veins, with potentially adverse repercussions for the cerebral circulation. We propose that locomotion-generated pressures have influenced multiple aspects of the cetacean vascular system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".