Effect of contact force on pulsed field ablation lesions in porcine cardiac tissue
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Contact force has been used to titrate lesion formation for radiofrequency ablation. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a field‐based ablation technology for which limited evidence on the impact of contact force on lesion size is available. Methods Porcine hearts ( n = 6) were perfused using a modified Langendorff set‐up. A prototype focal PFA catheter attached to a force gauge was held perpendicular to the epicardium and lowered until contact was made. Contact force was recorded during each PFA delivery. Matured lesions were cross‐sectioned, stained, and the lesion dimensions measured. Results A total of 82 lesions were evaluated with contact forces between 1.3 and 48.6 g. Mean lesion depth was 4.8 ± 0.9 mm (standard deviation), mean lesion width was 9.1 ± 1.3 mm, and mean lesion volume was 217.0 ± 96.6 mm 3 . Linear regression curves showed an increase of only 0.01 mm in depth (depth = 0.01 × contact force + 4.41, R 2 = 0.05), 0.03 mm in width (width = 0.03 × contact force + 8.26, R 2 = 0.13) for each additional gram of contact force, and 2.20 mm 3 in volume (volume = 2.20 × contact force + 162, R 2 = 0.10). Conclusion Increasing contact force using a bipolar, biphasic focal PFA system has minimal effects on acute lesion dimensions in an isolated porcine heart model and achieving tissue contact is more important than the force with which that contact is made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it