Violin plot data: A concerto of crucial information on valve thrombogenicity categorized in vitro by valve motion and inferred flow velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This in vitro study compares mechanical (MHV) and bioprosthetic (BHV) heart valves for high amplitude short duration regional flow velocities (RFV) near valve closure. Background We previously tested several clinical and prototype valves and observed RFV at levels which may be related to a dimensionless thrombogenic potential (TP). Methods A total of four valves were tested in aortic and mitral sites under pulsatile circulation in a pulse duplicator. Valves included both clinical models and experimental prototypes. An optical approach measuring projected dynamic valve area (PDVA) to gauge valve motion was implemented. Pulsatile pressures and flow rates were measured by conventional techniques and a quasi-steady flow tester was used to measure valve leakage. RFV was derived using time-dependent volumetric flow rate/PDVA. Since flow velocity and fluid shear force are related through flow velocity gradient, TPs for valves that achieve near closure during the forward flow deceleration phase were determined as RFVs relative to the control mechanical valve RFV value of −126 m/s. Results TP is dimensionless and ranged between −0.45 and +1.0. Negative TPs arise when transient rebound of valve occluders is accompanied by water-hammer phenomena. Positive TPs occur during the decelerating forward flow. Bioprostheses had lowest TP transient of 0.15 with exception of a mock-transcatheter aortic valve (mTAVI) that incorporated by design a trivial perivalvular leak (∼1.35 ml/s). This device demonstrated a remarkably high transient TP of 0.95. The control mechanical valves had the highest TP of 1.0. The study implicates TP transients near mechanical valve closure, and not forward or non-flow phases, as primary to shear induced activation of the coagulation cascade. Conclusions Our data reveals distinct TP profile differences between valve models. If verifiable, the design of future valves may utilize currently available experimental tools to determine TPs resulting in advanced devices with significantly reduced TP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".