MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403246284 · doi:10.1161/res.135.suppl_1.mo100

Abstract Mo100: Predictive Accuracy of Rightward Extrapolation of the Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure-Volume Relationship in Healthy Swine

2024· article· en· W4403246284 on OpenAlexaff
Filip Konečný, Ryan Mackey, Emily Hudson, Luke Graser, Brian R. Weil

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiologyExtrapolationInternal medicineMedicineDiastoleStroke volumeVentricular volumeBlood pressureEjection fractionHeart rateMathematicsHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Myocardial stiffness is a primary determinant of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function and can be quantitatively described by the end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship (EDPVR). The EDPVR is traditionally derived by measuring LV end-diastolic pressure (EDP) and volume (EDV) during transient reductions in venous return (preload). However, the accuracy of this approach in predicting changes in LVEDP in response to a rise in LVEDV via rightward extrapolation has not been directly studied. Accordingly, we sought to assess the predictive accuracy of preload reduction-derived EDPVRs in estimating LV diastolic stiffness (ΔLVEDP/ΔLVEDV) in healthy swine. Methods: LVEDP and LVEDV were measured in swine (n=6) at rest and during transient inferior vena cava (IVC) occlusion (reduced preload), transient aortic occlusion (increased afterload), and intravenous phenylephrine (PE; 0.5 mg/kg/hr; increased afterload and preload). Pressure-volume data collected during IVC occlusion were used to generate the EDPVR, the accuracy of which was determined via comparison to measurements of ΔLVEDP/ΔLVEDV during aortic occlusion and PE. Results: The LV diastolic stiffness coefficient was greater when derived via aortic occlusion vs. IVC occlusion (0.057±0.013 vs. 0.022±0.004; p=0.03). As a result, IVC occlusion-derived EDPVRs underestimated the rise in LVEDP during aortic occlusion (7.6±2.2 vs. 13.5±2.1 mmHg; p=0.08). Similarly, ΔLVEDP/ΔLVEDV in response to aortic occlusion (0.96±0.28 mmHg/mL) tended to be higher than that predicted from the IVC occlusion-derived EDPVR (0.44±0.09 mmHg/mL; p=0.12). Compared with aortic occlusion, PE elicited a greater rise in LVEDV (31.5±5.4 vs.18.6±4.2 mL; p=0.08) and LVEDP (20.8±1.3 vs. 13.5±2.1 mmHg; p=0.01) but ΔLVEDP/ΔLVEDV was comparable between each condition (0.78±0.16 mmHg/mL vs. 0.96±0.28 mmHg/mL; p=0.60). However, ΔLVEDP/ΔLVEDV derived from PE tended to be higher than that from IVC occlusion (0.78±0.16 mmHg/mL vs. 0.44±0.09 mmHg/mL; p=0.10). Conclusions: Rightward extrapolation of the EDPVR derived via IVC occlusion underestimates the rise in LVEDP when LVEDV is increased in the normal heart. This was observed with increased afterload as well as when afterload and preload were simultaneously increased via PE. These findings reinforce the importance of assessing the hemodynamic response to increased LV loading directly, rather than extrapolating from EDPVRs created via transient preload reduction.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation ResearchSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207