MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384568129 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2023-bcs.287

BS74 Assessment of fluid status in porcine models of heart failure and pulmonary hypertension

2023· article· en· W4384568129 on OpenAlexaff
Hamza Zafar, Joe Passman, Rachel Sandy, Carl Wright, Fiona Wright, Holly Evans, Leonard Ebah, Duha Ilyas, Prasanna Hanumapura, Shereen Sebastien, Abubaker Khalifa, Andy Swift, A. A. Roger Thompson, Robert S. Schwartz, Alexander Rothman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsJoseph Brant Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterstitial fluidPreloadHeart failureCentral venous pressureCardiac outputCardiologyPerfusionFluid compartmentsBolus (digestion)AnesthesiaInternal medicineHemodynamicsBlood pressureExtracellular fluidHeart rateChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Heart failure is characterized by fluid retention the management of which is critical to clinical care. Due to altered capillary Starling forces in heart failure, the interstitial compartment and lymphatic system act as large reservoirs of fluid accumulation, increasing up to 3-4 times to that of the intravascular compartment. Interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) correlates with indicators of impaired cardiac function including reduced cardiac output and increased cardiac filling pressures. IFP may be measured from a preserved fluid pocket following the maturation of a subcutaneous perforated capsule in animals. However, the structural understanding of tissue neovascularization within a perforated capsule and the temporal relationship between cardiopulmonary haemodynamics and IFP are unknown. Methods Seven Yorkshire White swine (45-50kg) were implanted with subcutaneous perforated capsules (Home Office Project Licence PP1785781). After 3 weeks animals were anaesthetised and continuous monitoring of IFP, LVEDP, CVP and mPAP was established. Esmolol (10mg/ml, 50ml/hr) was used to blunt the sympathetic response and heart failure induced by infusion of 0.9% NaCl (10% body weight/3 hours, i.v.) until a central venous pressure (CVP) of >15mmHg was maintained. Fluid was then removed to euvolemia via ultrafiltration (3 hours) [figure 1]. To characterise the perforated capsule: 1) serial measurements of venous, interstitial, and subcutaneous glucose were made following a venous glucose bolus (0.5g/kg); 2) a silicone-based liquid perfusion-fixation agent was infused into the arterial system to cast the vasculature for MicroCT and microscopy. Results Histology and MicroCT showed neovascularisation of the perforated capsule with a central fluid pocket in communication with the systemic vasculature [figure 2A-D]. A venous bolus of glucose results in diffusion of the micro-molecule from the vasculature into the fluid pocket, however, the large molecule Microfil (silicone-based casting dye) does not diffuse, thereby confirming that the new blood vessels function as a capillary barrier between the vascular and interstitial compartment [figure 3]. IFP, as measured from the perforated fluid pocket, was closely associated with LVEDP, mPAP and CVP during the induction of heart failure and ultrafiltration [figure 4]. Conclusion Interstitial fluid pressure is closely related to invasive hemodynamic indicators of congestion and heart failure. A mature perforated capsule forms a neovascular structure with a central fluid pocket. IFP is closely related to LVEDP at rest and during a haemodynamic challenge. The assessment of interstitial fluid pressure may provide a direct measure of fluid status and an indirect measure of haemodynamics facilitating early identification of clinical worsening and optimization of fluid balance. Conflict of Interest none

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207