MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312112275 · doi:10.3791/64384

Assessment of <em>Ex Vivo</em> Murine Biventricular Function in a Langendorff Model

2022· article· en· W4312112275 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Emmanuel Noly, Suyash Naik, Paul C. Tang, Ienglam Lei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsEx vivoVentricleMedicineCardiac function curveCardiologyHeart transplantationPerfusionTransplantationIn vivoInternal medicineHeart failureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains the leading cause of early death following heart transplantation. Prolonged ischemic time during cold preservation is an important risk factor for PGD, and reliable evaluation of cardiac function is essential to study the functional responses of the donor heart after cold preservation. The accompanying video describes a technique to assess murine right and left ventricular function using ex vivo perfusion based in a Langendorff model after cold preservation for different durations. In brief, the heart is isolated and stored in a cold histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) solution. Then, the heart is perfused with a Kreb buffer in a Langendorff model for 60 min. A silicone balloon is inserted into the left and right ventricle, and cardiac functional parameters are recorded (dP/dt, pressure-volume relationships). This protocol allows the reliable evaluation of cardiac function after different heart preservation protocols. Importantly, this technique allows the study of cardiac preservation responses specifically in native cardiac cells. The use of very small murine hearts allows access to an enormous array of transgenic mice to investigate the mechanisms of PGD.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207