MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synchronous biventricular pressure‐volume loops in rodents using a closed‐chest approach

2022· article· en· W4225421589 on OpenAlexafffund
Christopher R. West, Mehdi Ahmadian, Liisa Wainman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVentricleMedicineCardiologyVentricular pressureInternal medicineCatheterVolume (thermodynamics)Blood pressureSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The assessment of left‐ and right‐sided cardiac function via closed‐chest pressure‐volume loops is important to understanding and diagnosing a wide range of cardiovascular pathologies. In the vast majority of pre‐clinical studies, either left‐ or right‐sided heart function is assessed in isolation, or, more recently, by sequentially right‐ and left‐sided catheterization 1 . Synchronous biventricular catheterization would offer a significant advancement for pre‐clinical research. To date, closed‐chest synchronous biventricular pressure‐volume loops have only been obtained in a few studies, limited to porcine models 2 . Here, we describe initial results from what we believe to be the first synchronous biventricular pressure‐volume loops obtained in the rodent using a closed‐chest approach. Aim To obtain biventricular pressure‐volume loops in the anesthetized rat using a closed‐chest approach Methods A total of 8 Wistar rats were anesthetized with urethane (1.5mg/kg), tracheotomised, ventilated, and subsequently had a solid state catheter placed in the femoral artery to measure blood pressure, and admittance pressure‐volume catheters placed in the right‐ and left‐ventricle to obtain synchronous biventricular pressure‐volume loops. Admittance probes were set to different frequencies to avoid cross‐talk. All catheters were left to stabilize for a minimum of 10 min after which we extracted and averaged 1 minute of basal pressure‐volume indices. Results Reliable ventricular pressure waveforms were obtained from both the left (i.e., left‐ventricular end‐systolic pressure = 106±12mmHg) and right (i.e., right‐ventricular end systolic pressure = 28±8mmHg) side in all eight animals, and we were able to obtain standard left‐sided pressure‐volume loops from all eight animals (i.e., stroke work = 22±5mmHg/ml). We were only able to obtain reliable right‐sided pressure‐volume loops in two of eight animals, due to poor volume signals in the remaining 6 animals. In the two animals we were able to obtain synchronous pressure‐volume loops there was clear evidence of ventricular dependence across the respiratory cycle (Fig.1). Conclusions Obtaining synchronous biventricular pressure‐volume loops using a closed‐chest approach in rats is possible but technically challenging. Further work is needed to better obtain right‐sided ventricular volumes. References Potus F. et al., J. Vis. Exp (160), e61088, doi:10.3791/61088 (2020). Lyhne MD. et al., J. Vis. Exp.(171), e62661, doi:10.3791/62661 (2021).

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207