MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978166482 · doi:10.1097/crd.0000000000000202

The Physiological Rationale for Incorporating Pulsatility in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

2018· review· en· W2978166482 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in Review · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemMount Sinai HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContinuous flowVentricular assist deviceCirculatory systemIntensive care medicinePulsatile flowHeart failureCardiologyDestination therapyBlood flowInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past few decades, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has extended the lives of many patients with end-stage heart failure. The most common devices are continuous-flow (CF) LVADs. The use of the CF-LVADs has required that clinicians learn the physiological and clinical consequences of long-term continuous blood flow. While this alteration in the normal physiology still offers advantages from mechanical circulatory support, the lack of pulsatility may also increase the likelihood of adverse events. However, it is currently unknown whether newly evolved devices should incorporate pulsatility. In this article, we discuss the possible benefits of incorporating pulsatility, while maintaining the benefits of the CF-LVAD, to maximize the treatment of patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.256 · 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