On the nature of intra-abdominal pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A lot of scientific papers is dedicated to study of the influence of intraabdominal pressure on the different organs and systems of a human body.At the same time, a question on the nature of intra-abdominal pressure still remains unsolved.In the scientific literature, there are some explanations of the physical meaning of intraabdominal pressure, but the complete concept, which allows us to explain the presence of pressure in the abdomen, does not exist.In accordance with this, the aim of the present work is to analyze the results of the different studies aimed at studying causes of emergence of the pressure in the abdominal cavity.On the basis of the experimental data, presented in literary sources, this article describes the existence of gradient of intraabdominal pressure, caused by the effect of gravity.We examine the simplest model of the abdominal wall in order to estimate the relationship between intra-abdominal pressure and stresses in the wall caused by the contraction of muscles of the abdominal wall.We also analyze the influence of changes of the volume of abdominal contents on the pressure in the abdominal cavity.In addition, we investigate the question of trends of the distribution of pressure in the abdomen.As a result of the conducted analysis, we formulate a conclusion that the existence of intra-abdominal pressure is explained by the effect of gravity on the abdominal contents and the stresses in the abdominal wall tissues.In this way, the abdominal cavity can be regarded as a liquid-filled container with an elastic sheath that can change its shape.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".