MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216103997 · doi:10.3390/fluids6120428

Flow Dynamics in a Model of a Left Ventricle with Different Mitral Valve Orientations

2021· article· en· W3216103997 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

VenueFluids · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricleMitral valveClockwiseVortexMedicineCardiac cycleCardiologyMechanicsRotation (mathematics)Internal medicinePhysicsGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation of vortex rings at valve leaflets during ventricular inflow has been a topic of interest for many years. It is generally accepted nowadays that the purpose of vortex rings is to conserve energy, reduce the workload on the heart, and minimize particle residence time. We investigated these claims by testing three different levels of annulus angle for the mitral valve: a healthy case, a slightly angled case (20°), and a highly angled case (46°). Circulation was determined to be reversed in the non-healthy case, with a dominant counterclockwise rotation instead of clockwise. Viscous energy dissipation was highest in the slightly angled case, followed by the healthy case and then the highly angled case. A Lagrangian analysis demonstrated that the healthy case resulted in the least amount of stasis, requiring eight cardiac cycles to evacuate 99% of initial ventricle volume compared to the 16 and 13 cardiac cycles required by the slightly angled and highly angled cases, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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