MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806196200 · doi:10.1097/mat.0000000000000821

Quantification of Pulsed Operation of Rotary Left Ventricular Assist Devices with Wave Intensity Analysis

2018· article· en· W2806196200 on OpenAlexaff
J. Christopher Bouwmeester, Jiheum Park, Arnar Geirsson, John Valdovinos, Pramod Bonde

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineIntensity (physics)CardiologyVentricular assist deviceInternal medicineBiomedical engineeringHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current generation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provides continuous flow and has the capacity to reduce aortic pulsatility, which may be related to a range of complications associated with these devices. Pulsed LVAD operation using speed modulation presents a mechanism to restore aortic pulsatility and potentially mitigate complications. We sought to investigate the interaction of axial and centrifugal LVADs with the LV and quantify the effects of continuous and pulsed LVAD operations on LV generated wave patterns under different physiologic conditions using wave intensity analysis (WIA) method. The axial LVAD created greater wave intensity associated with LV relaxation. In both LVADs, there were only minor and variable differences between the continuous and pulsed operations. The response to physiologic stress was preserved with LVAD implantation as wave intensity increased marginally with volume loading and significantly with infusion of norepinephrine. Our findings and a new approach of investigating aortic wave patterns based on WIA are expected to provide useful clinical insights to determine the ideal operation of LVADs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASAIO JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207