Using a Human Circulation Mathematical Model to Simulate the Effects of Hemodialysis and Therapeutic Hypothermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We developed a hemodynamic mathematical model of human circulation coupled to a virtual hemodialyzer. The model was used to explore mechanisms underlying our clinical observations involving hemodialysis. Methods: The model consists of whole body human circulation, baroreflex feedback control, and a hemodialyzer. Four model populations encompassing baseline, dialysed, therapeutic hypothermia treated, and simultaneous dialysed with hypothermia were generated. In all populations atrial fibrillation and renal failure as co-morbidities, and exercise as a treatment were simulated. Clinically relevant measurables were used to quantify the effects of each in silico experiment. Sensitivity analysis was used to uncover the most relevant parameters. Results: Relative to baseline, the modelled dialysis increased the population mean diastolic blood pressure by 5%, large vessel wall shear stress by 6%, and heart rate by 20%. Therapeutic hypothermia increased systolic blood pressure by 3%, reduced large vessel shear stress by 15%, and did not affect heart rate. Therapeutic hypothermia reduced wall shear stress by 15% in the aorta and 6% in the kidneys, suggesting a potential anti-inflammatory benefit. Therapeutic hypothermia reduced cardiac output under atrial fibrillation by 12% and under renal failure by 20%. Therapeutic hypothermia and exercise did not affect dialyser function, but increased water removal by approximately 40%. Conclusions: This study illuminates some mechanisms of the action of therapeutic hypothermia. It also suggests clinical measurables that may be used as surrogates to diagnose underlying diseases such as atrial fibrillation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".