Hypothermic and Subnormothermic Ex-situ Heart Perfusion: Examining Diverse Strategies and Their Effects on Heart Function Preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of people suffering from heart failure grows annually. For those people who have advanced heart failure and are eligible for a heart transplant, this is the gold standard procedure to treat them. Allowing not only an improvement in quality of life but also an increase in survival. However, the number of heart transplants performed per year in Canada and around the world is smaller than the number of people on the waiting list for a donated organ. In addition, one of the determining factors for this deficit between donated organs and transplants performed is the current method of organ preservation. Ex-situ heart perfusion (ESHP) has proven to be a more effective method than the current one, static cold storage (SCS). However, there are different types of ESHP, being the hypothermic and subnormothermic the least complex in relation to normothermic for several reasons that will be addressed in this thesis. The creation of protocols to make ESHP uniform are essential for the dissemination of this method of organ preservation. Since this method can extend the preservation time prior to transplantation, it can improve preservation and hence increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The first study presented evaluated the ideal temperature to be applied during hypothermic ESHP using UW machine perfusion solution (UWMPS). It was seen that the lowest temperature studied was the one that obtained better heart function preservation after 12 hours of perfusion. The results were compared to the current preservation method. The second study sought to optimize UWMPS with the aim of enhancing heart function preservation. Two modifications were applied in the perfusate studied, the addition of amino acids and the addition of some ions (as these components are presented in Somah). The results obtained in this study were compared with UWMPS as a control. The results presented in these two studies can be used to guide new studies and build new protocols for ESHP. This strengthens the use of ESHP as a gold standard method and increases the number of heart transplants performed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".