Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38605405›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2024

Considerations on static pressure gradients in closed circulatory systems.

Nato Popara, Denis Cvitković, Marinko Vilić, Selim Pašić

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nato PoparaDeparment of Physics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Denis CvitkovićDeparment of Veterinary Economics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Marinko VilićDepartment of Physiology and Radiobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0001-6453-6996
Selim PašićDeparment of Physics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID 0000-0002-5844-5630
University of Zagreb · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Siphons are devices that transport liquids uphill between two containers. It has been proposed that a siphon principle operates in closed circulatory systems, as best exemplified by the circulation of blood in mammals. This principle is supposed to ensure that no additional work is necessary to pump blood above the level of the heart, and that there is no gravitational static pressure gradient in the column of blood. The first statement is correct, while we demonstrate that, ignoring hydraulic resistance to blood flow, the static pressure gradient is equal to the hydrostatic gradient in a siphon model of blood circulation, although the details of the proof do not depend on the geometry of the circulatory system and the proof can be trivially extended to other models such as a vascular waterfall. This implies that the controversy over the siphon principle has no implications for the description of blood circulation, and that mechanisms such as the "baffle," which some authors have appealed to in order to obtain the expected gradient, are not necessary. In our discussion, we also discuss empirical data that appear to provide additional verification of our results, as well as several everyday occurrences that provide additional support.

Indexed as

HeartHemodynamicsAnimalsGravitationMammalsblood circulationsiphon principlestatic pressurevascular waterfall

Identifiers

PMID38605405
PMCPMC11009368
OpenAlexW4394758552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.