ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Physiological rules for the heart, lungs and other pressure-based organs.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Efficacy of sequential lateral position management in patients with chronic wounds and pulmonary complications: a prospective RCT].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Trial
- Isovolumic relaxation strain imaging is an accurate and sensitive approach for detection of active diastolic dysfunction: A preclinical study.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Appraising Myocardial Strain and Biomechanics: A Current Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Optimized Conditions for the Long-Term Maintenance of Precision-Cut Murine Myocardium in Biomimetic Tissue Culture.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adherence of the heart to physical laws, such as Laplace's Law, may act as a measure of the organ's relative efficiency. Allometric relationships were investigated to assess the heart's efficiency concerning end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, cardiac pressurization energy, cardiac output and mass.
methodsData to generate allometric relationships was obtained using a literature search, identifying heart and lung data across different mammalian and bird species. Statistical analysis was carried out using ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation.
resultsNear isometric relationships exist between body mass and seven parameters indicating no "efficiency of size" with scaling of the heart, and size-matching of the heart to the lungs and whole body. Even though there was equal efficiency in pressurization energy generation, cardiac output was maximally efficient in small mammals <10 kg and birds; the human heart reached only 71% efficiency. This loss in cardiac efficiency with increasing body mass can be explained by the aortic cross-section that scales following the three-quarter allometry law, compared to end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes that scale isometrically. The heart is therefore throttled by a relatively small aorta at large body size.
conclusionsMammalian and avian hearts operate at similar efficiencies, demonstrating a high degree of symmorphosis, however cardiac output efficiency decreases in larger animals due to a relatively negative aortic cross-section allometry. This work has a myriad of potential applications including explaining cardiac dysfunction in athletes, patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement and why heavy exercise is associated with a worse prognosis than mild or moderate exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.