Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Cardiovascular function changes following lung resection: a computational model to compare afterload increase and contractility loss mechanisms

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that right-ventricular dysfunction after lung resection probably involves both increased afterload and reduced contractility, and that three right-heart pressures can separate the two mechanisms.

desk verdict First lumped-parameter model of lung resection effects; the pressure differentiator is real but structurally baked in, and the Za scaling assumption needs a robustness check before the clinical claim can carry weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01264 v1 pith:Q4KXXHYM submitted 2025-05-02 q-bio.TO q-bio.QM

Shiting Huang , Sanjay Pant , Sean McGinty , Richard Good , Ben Shelley , Ankush Aggarwal This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.TOq-bio.QM
keywords lungresectionrightventriculardysfunctionlumpedparametermodellingafterloadcontractilitypulmonarycirculationtime-varyingelastancesensitivityanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

After lung resection, patients often develop right-ventricular (RV) dysfunction, but clinicians cannot tell whether the cause is extra load on the right heart or a weakened right ventricle. This paper builds a computer model of the whole circulation and runs the two suspected mechanisms separately. It finds that almost every volume and pressure index changes in the same direction under both mechanisms, except three pressures on the right side: RV systolic pressure and pulmonary artery systolic and diastolic pressure rise when afterload increases and fall when contractility drops. The paper argues that if this holds clinically, those three pressures could identify which mechanism is at work in a given patient. The broader point is that postoperative RV dysfunction may be a mixture of both mechanisms, not afterload alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a closed-loop lumped-parameter (0D) circulation model with 14 state variables: four heart chambers driven by time-varying elastance, four dynamic valves, and systemic and pulmonary three-element Windkessel afterloads. Lung resection is imposed by rescaling pulmonary impedance and resistance as $1/(1-\alpha)$ and compliance as $1-\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the fraction of lung removed; contractility loss is imposed by lowering maximum RV elastance $E_{\max}^{\mathrm{RV}}$. The discriminating result is that volume indices respond similarly to both perturbations, while the right-heart pressures are pushed in opposite directions by downstream resistance and upstream contraction strength.

What would settle it

A clinical study measuring RVEF, RVSP, PASP and PADP before and after lobectomy or pneumonectomy would settle the claim: if patients whose RVEF drops show right-heart pressures that stay flat or rise, the model's predicted opposite-pressure signature of contractility loss is contradicted, whereas a mix of falling and rising pressures across patients would support it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that after lung resection, right-ventricular dysfunction can be produced by either increased pulmonary afterload or decreased RV contractility, and that these two mechanisms are distinguishable by the sign of three pressure changes. In the simulations, removing up to 50% of lung segments raises RVSP by 19.5%, PASP by 49.1% and PADP by 28.9% when afterload alone rises; cutting RV contractility to half lowers RVSP by 21.7%, PASP by 13.5% and PADP by 7.12%. Volumes such as RVEDV, RVESV and RVEF move in the same direction under both mechanisms, which is why routine imaging cannot separate them. The authors therefore propose RVSP, PASP and PADP as candidate discriminating indices.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes pulmonary vessels behave as identical parallel segments, so removing a fraction $\alpha$ of the lung scales resistance and impedance as $1/(1-\alpha)$ and compliance as $1-\alpha$; if the real vasculature recruits, collapses, or remodels rather than scaling in proportion, the modeled afterload increase does not match the postoperative circulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, clinicians could use RVSP, PASP and PADP together with RVEF to infer which mechanism dominates in a given patient after lung resection.
  • The model reproduces the clinical pattern that RVEDV and RVESV rise and RVEF falls after resection under either mechanism, so volume measurements alone cannot settle the mechanism debate.
  • The simulation predicts only small LV changes under both mechanisms, consistent with the clinical observation that LV function is largely preserved after lung resection.
  • Because afterload alone produces the same volume trends as contractility loss, the paper's results support treating postoperative RV dysfunction as a mixed afterload-plus-contractility problem rather than purely a loading problem.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: testing the model's pressure-sign prediction would require a small prospective cohort with paired echocardiographic RVEF and right-heart pressure measurements before and after resection; most existing studies report pressures and ejection fraction separately, which may be why the distinction has not been noticed.
  • Editorial inference: the model omits ventricular interdependence and autonomic compensation; adding these could shift the magnitude of the predicted pressure splits and may reduce how cleanly the two mechanisms separate in real patients.
  • Editorial inference: if vascular recruitment or remodeling invalidates the proportional afterload scaling, the modeled load increase would overestimate the real postoperative load, shifting the balance of evidence toward contractility loss as the primary driver.
  • Editorial inference: the same parallel-segment rescaling logic could be applied to other settings that remove vascular beds, where a similar dissociation between volume-based and pressure-based indices might appear.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reviews clinical evidence on right ventricular (RV) dysfunction after lung resection and presents a closed-loop 0D lumped-parameter model of the cardiovascular system with four heart chambers, four valves, and systemic and pulmonary three-element Windkessel circulations. The circulation parameters are calibrated by an exhaustive search, and the model is used to simulate two isolated mechanisms: afterload increase, modeled by scaling pulmonary resistance, impedance, and compliance with the resected lung fraction (Eqs. 20-22), and RV contractility loss, modeled by reducing E_RVmax. Local and global sensitivity analyses are performed. The central result is that most volume and pressure indices change in the same direction under both mechanisms, but RVSP, PASP, and PADP increase with afterload and decrease with contractility loss, which the authors propose as a potential clinical differentiator. The paper concludes that postoperative RV dysfunction may result from a combination of both mechanisms and claims to be the first computational model of lung resection effects on the cardiovascular system.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are accepted, the paper makes a useful contribution as a first mechanistic framework for interpreting postoperative RV dysfunction after lung resection. The model is transparent, the baseline outputs lie within physiological reference ranges, and the sensitivity analyses are thorough (about 3.67 million samples for Sobol indices). The proposal that three pulmonary pressures may help distinguish afterload from contractility mechanisms is clinically interesting and falsifiable. However, the central differentiator rests heavily on an unvalidated scaling assumption for proximal impedance, and the baseline 'validation' is partly circular because the same reference ranges are used for calibration and for the comparison in Table 9. These issues are addressable and do not undermine the potential value of the framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.1, Eq. (21), Table 10, Section 4.3] The proposed differentiator—PASP increasing with afterload but decreasing with contractility loss—rests on the parallel-segment scaling for proximal impedance Z_a, Eq. (21). Table 10 shows PASP is highly sensitive to Z_a, and Section 4.3 reports a 49.1% PASP increase at alpha=50%, the largest pressure change in the afterload scenario. The scaling Z_a ∝ 1/(1−alpha) is plausible for distal resistance but much less secure for the characteristic impedance of proximal, extra-parenchymal pulmonary arteries, which depend on the geometry and stiffness of the remaining large vessels rather than simply on the number of parallel segments. The authors acknowledge in Section 5.4 that 'the assumption that pulmonary vascular resistance proportionally relates to lung volume requires validation,' but they do not extend this caveat to Z_a. Since the sign and magnitude of the PASP/RVSP difference is the central claim, the manuscript should include a robustness analysis in which the scaling exponent of Z_a is varied (e.g., Z_a ∝ (1−alpha)^{−γ} for γ in [0,2]) and should report whether the opposite trends between the two mechanisms survive, or justify the scaling with anatomic/imaging data.
  2. [Section 3.1 'Parameter estimation', Table 9] The baseline circulation parameters are obtained by an exhaustive search that selects the sample best matching physiological reference values, and the same reference values are then used in Table 9 to show that the baseline outputs are 'reasonably close.' This is a calibration loop rather than an independent validation, so Table 9 should not be presented as evidence of external validity. I recommend stating the objective function used to select the best sample, reporting the number of near-optimal parameter sets and the spread of their outputs, and reframing Table 9 as a check of calibration consistency rather than as validation. This does not invalidate the mechanism comparison, but it affects the quantitative confidence in the baseline state.
  3. [Section 5.5, Section 4.3] The conclusion that 'post-op RV dysfunction may be caused by both post-op afterload increase and RV contractility loss simultaneously' is not directly tested: the simulations compare the two mechanisms in isolation. A combined simulation—for example, afterload increase together with a range of E_RVmax reductions—would test whether the combined state reproduces the clinical volume pattern and whether the proposed pressure differentiators remain separable when both mechanisms act together. Please either add such simulations or soften the conclusion to state that the data are consistent with a combination but do not directly test it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The elastance formula is typeset ambiguously: 'E(t) = Emax−E min / maxt(...) H1 H2 + E min' should read '(Emax − Emin)/max_t(H1 H2) × H1 H2 + Emin.' Please add the missing parentheses.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 10, Figure 5] The statement that 'the capillary resistance (Rpul) variations ... had a highly negative impact on RVSP, PASP, PADP, and RVESV' appears to contradict Table 10, which reports positive local sensitivities for PADP (0.54), PASP (0.19), and RVESV (0.3) with respect to Rpul. The afterload-increase scenario, which increases Rpul, also raises PASP, PADP, and RVESV. Please correct either the sentence or the sensitivity table.
  3. [Section 3.3.1, Eqs. (20)-(22)] The notation 'α=100% n/N' is confusing because (1−α) appears in the denominators of Eqs. (20)-(22). Since α is treated as a fraction, please write α = n/N (or define α as a percentage consistently and use (1−α/100) in the formulas).
  4. [Section 5.4] The limitations listed in Section 5.4 are appropriate, but the most consequential one—the scaling of Z_a with resected volume—should be elevated from a future-work remark to a first-class limitation with a concrete sensitivity analysis, as described in Major Comment 1.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typographical issues: 'systematic' should be 'systemic' in Section 5.1, and 'In deed' in Section 5.4 should be 'Indeed.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pressure differentiators are direct consequences of the model's constitutive equations, but they are computed states rather than redefined or fitted inputs; the load-bearing weakness is the unvalidated afterload scaling in Eqs. (20)-(22), which is a validity concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required for circularity. The baseline pulmonary and systemic parameters are found by exhaustive search against physiological reference ranges, and the resection scenarios are imposed as explicit parameter changes (Eqs. 20-22 for afterload; E_RVmax reduction for contractility). The reported outputs—RVSP, PASP, PADP, volumes, and EF—are state variables computed from the closed-loop equations, not quantities that were fitted or used to define the scenarios. The afterload scenario does not set PASP directly; it sets R, Z_a, and C, and the pressure is then solved from Pprox = Z_a q_in + P_c (Eq. 10). Likewise, contractility loss is defined as reducing E_RVmax, with P = E(V - V0) (Eq. 1) determining pressure after solving the coupled system; the substantial simulated RV volume increase could in principle offset the elastance reduction, and the model shows it only moderates it. The paper itself describes these as 'expected trends, physiologically' (Section 5.4), which is an acknowledgment that the directional result is not an independent empirical discovery, but a direct model implication is not a circular reduction. The self-citations (Shelley et al., Glass et al., McCall et al.) are used as clinical background and external observations, not as proof of the model's conclusions. The main genuine weakness is the unvalidated assumption in Section 5.4 that pulmonary vascular resistance (and, correspondingly, impedance and compliance in Eqs. 21-22) scales with resected lung volume; that is a correctness/validity risk, not a circularity. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on established cardiovascular modeling assumptions, with the notable ad hoc addition being the parallel-segment scaling of pulmonary parameters after resection. The six baseline circulation parameters are fitted to physiological reference values rather than derived or measured. No genuinely new physical or physiological entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Pulmonary compliance C_pul = 3.6258 mmHg^-1 ml
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search over 524,288 samples to match physiological reference ranges for stroke volume, ejection fraction, and pressures (Section 3.1, Parameter estimation).
  • Pulmonary impedance Z_a_pul = 0.01995 mmHg ml^-1 s
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search to match physiological reference ranges; not independently validated against patient data.
  • Pulmonary resistance R_pul = 0.1237 mmHg ml^-1 s
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search to match physiological reference ranges; this parameter dominates sensitivity results.
  • Systemic compliance C_sys = 0.8131 mmHg^-1 ml
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search to match physiological reference ranges; part of the fitted baseline circulation.
  • Systemic impedance Z_a_sys = 0.0776 mmHg ml^-1 s
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search to match physiological reference ranges; part of the fitted baseline circulation.
  • Systemic resistance R_sys = 1.1032 mmHg ml^-1 s
    Chosen by exhaustive Sobol search to match physiological reference ranges; part of the fitted baseline circulation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cardiac chamber pressure follows the time-varying elastance relation P(t)=E(t)(V(t)-V0), with E(t) specified as an input function.
    Standard Suga-Sagawa type model used throughout cardiovascular simulation; accepted here without independent validation for post-lung-resection patients. Invoked in Section 3.1, Equation 1.
  • domain assumption The pulmonary and systemic circulations are represented by three-element Windkessel models.
    Standard lumped-parameter representation; adequate for global pressures and flows but cannot capture wave reflection details, which the authors note are relevant to afterload. Invoked in Section 3.1, Circulation.
  • ad hoc to paper Pulmonary vascular resistance, impedance, and compliance scale with resected lung fraction according to the parallel-segment formulas in Equations 20-22.
    Load-bearing assumption for the afterload-increase simulation. The authors explicitly state in Section 5.4 that this proportional relation requires validation.
  • domain assumption There is no coupling between the left and right ventricles and no compensatory or autoregulatory mechanism in the model.
    Stated in Section 5.4 as a limitation. The model intentionally isolates mechanisms but may miss ventricular interdependence and long-term adaptation.
  • domain assumption The pre-operative baseline is a healthy cardiovascular system.
    Stated in Section 5.4; lung cancer patients may have underlying lung and cardiac comorbidity, so the healthy baseline may not represent the surgical population.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cardiovascular function changes following lung resection: a computational model to compare afterload increase and contractility loss mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4KXXHYM

@misc{pith2026250501264,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cardiovascular function changes following lung resection: a computational model to compare afterload increase and contractility loss mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4KXXHYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01264}
}
read the original abstract

Functional limitation after lung resection surgery has been consistently documented in clinical studies, and right ventricle (RV) dysfunction has been hypothesized as a contributing reason. However, the mechanisms of RV dysfunction after lung resection remain unclear, particularly whether change in afterload or contractility is the main cause. This study is the first to employ a lumped parameter model to simulate the effects of lung resection. The implementation of a computational model allowed us to isolate certain mechanisms that are difficult to perform clinically. Specifically, two mechanisms were compared: afterload increase and RV contractility loss. Furthermore, our rigorous approach included local and global sensitivity analyses to evaluate the effect of parameters on our results, both individually and collectively. Our results demonstrate that contractility and afterload exhibited consistent trends across various pressure and volume conditions, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure, and right ventricular systolic pressure showed opposite variations. The results show that post-operative RV dysfunction may result from a combination of RV contractility loss and afterload increase. Further exploration and refinement of this first computational model presented herein will help us predict RV dysfunction after lung resection and pave the way towards improving outcomes for lung cancer patients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01264 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Physiological circulatory system; (b) Computational model structure corresponding to (a). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of each component in the lumped parameter model: (a) The heart chamber [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A schematic of the changes in pulmonary circulation during lung resection, categorised into three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model results under the baseline condition showing ventricular pressure and volume alongside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of local (a) and global analyses (b, c): (a) local sensitivity shows results change (%) for 1% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of the lung resection simulation under afterload and contractility change cases. Most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the effects of afterload and RV contractility changes on ventricular volume-related [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the effects of afterload and RV contractility changes on ventricular and pulmonary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    William D. Travis. Pathology of lung cancer.Clinics in Chest Medicine, 32(4):669–692, December 2011. ISSN 0272-5231, 1557-8216. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2011.08.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ccm.2011.08.005 2011

  2. [2]

    Baruch Vainshelboim, Benjamin Daniel Fox, Milton Saute, Alexander Sagie, Liora Yehoshua, Leonardo Fuks, Sonia Schneer, and Mordechai R. Kramer. Limitations in exercise and functional capacity in long-term postpneumonectomy patients.Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, 35(1):56–64, January 2015. ISSN 1932-7501. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000...

    work page doi:10.1097/hcr.0000000000000085 2015

  3. [3]

    Overview | Lung Cancer: diagnosis and management | Guidance, 2024

    NICE. Overview | Lung Cancer: diagnosis and management | Guidance, 2024. URLhttps://www. nice.org.uk/guidance/ng122

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    McCall, Alex Arthur, Adam Glass, David S

    Philip J. McCall, Alex Arthur, Adam Glass, David S. Corcoran, Alan Kirk, Alistair Macfie, John Payne, Martin Johnson, John Kinsella, and Benjamin G. Shelley. The right ventricular response to lung resection.The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 158(2):556–565.e5, August 2019. ISSN 00225223. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.067

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.067 2019

  5. [5]

    Effects of lung resection on pulmonary function and exercise capacity.Thorax, 45(7):497–502, July 1990

    C Pelletier, L Lapointe, and P LeBlanc. Effects of lung resection on pulmonary function and exercise capacity.Thorax, 45(7):497–502, July 1990. ISSN 0040-6376. doi: 10.1136/thx.45.7.497

    work page doi:10.1136/thx.45.7.497 1990

  6. [6]

    Larsen, Ulrik G Svendsen, Nils Milman, Jørn Brenøe, and Bruno N Petersen

    Klaus R. Larsen, Ulrik G Svendsen, Nils Milman, Jørn Brenøe, and Bruno N Petersen. Cardiopulmonary function at rest and during exercise after resection for bronchial carcinoma.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 64(4):960–964, October 1997. ISSN 00034975. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00635-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00635-8 1997

  7. [7]

    Mageed, Yasser A

    Nabil A. Mageed, Yasser A. Farag El-Ghonaimy, Mohamed-Adel F. Elgamal, and Usama Hamza. Acute effects of lobectomy on right ventricular ejection fraction and mixed venous oxygen saturation.Annals of Saudi Medicine, 25(6):481–485, November 2005. ISSN 0256-4947, 0975-4466. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947. 2005.481

    work page doi:10.5144/0256-4947 2005

  8. [8]

    Elrakhawy, Mohamed A

    Hany M. Elrakhawy, Mohamed A. Alassal, Ayman M. Shaalan, Ahmed A. Awad, Sameh Sayed, and Mohammad M. Saffan. Impact of major pulmonary resections on right ventricular function: Early postoperative changes.The Heart Surgery Forum, 21(11):E009–E017, January 2018. ISSN 1522-6662. doi: 10.1532/hsf.1864

    work page doi:10.1532/hsf.1864 2018

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Right ventricular dysfunction after major pulmonary resection.The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovas- cular Surgery, 108(3):503–511, September 1994

    Morihito Okada, Toshiaki Ota, Masayoshi Okada, Hitoshi Matsuda, Kenji Okada, and Noboru Ishii. Right ventricular dysfunction after major pulmonary resection.The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovas- cular Surgery, 108(3):503–511, September 1994. ISSN 0022-5223. doi: 10.1016/S0022...

    1994 doi

  2. [10]

    Right ventricular morphology and function after pulmonary resection1.European Journal of Cardio- Thoracic Surgery, 15(4):444–448, April 1999

    Janusz Kowalewski, Marian Brocki, Tadeusz Dryjański, Krzysztof Kaproń, and Stanisław Barcikowski. Right ventricular morphology and function after pulmonary resection1.European Journal of Cardio- Thoracic Surgery, 15(4):444–448, April 1999. ISSN 1010-7940. doi: 10.1016/S1010-79...

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    Theresa Gelzinis, Sherif Assaad, and Albert C. Perrino. Right ventricular function during and after thoracic surgery.Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology, 33(1):27–36, February 2020. ISSN 0952-7907, 1473-6500. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000809

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Perioperative cardiovascular pathophysiology in patients undergoing lung resection surgery: a narrative review.British Journal of Anaesthesia, 130(1):e66–e79, January 2023

    Ben Shelley, Adam Glass, Thomas Keast, James McErlane, Cara Hughes, Brian Lafferty, Nandor Mar- czin, and Philip McCall. Perioperative cardiovascular pathophysiology in patients undergoing lung resection surgery: a narrative review.British Journal of Anaesthesia, 130(1):e66–e7...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Rightventriculardysfunctionpersists following brief right ventricular pressure overload.Cardiovascular Research, 34(2):281–288, May 1997

    CliffordGreyson, YaXu, JoshuaCohen, andGregoryG.Schwartz. Rightventriculardysfunctionpersists following brief right ventricular pressure overload.Cardiovascular Research, 34(2):281–288, May 1997. ISSN 0008-6363. doi: 10.1016/S0008-6363(97)00038-2. 23

    1997 doi

  6. [14]

    Watts, Michael R

    John A. Watts, Michael R. Marchick, and Jeffrey A. Kline. Right ventricular heart failure from pul- monary embolism: Key distinctions from chronic pulmonary hypertension.Journal of Cardiac Failure, 16(3):250–259, March 2010. ISSN 1071-9164. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.11.008

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    Watts, M.A

    J.A. Watts, M.A. Gellar, L.K. Stuart, M. Obraztsova, and J.A. Kline. Proinflammatory events in right ventricular damage during pulmonary embolism: Effects of treatment with ketorolac in rats.Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 54(3):246–252, 2009. doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3181b2b699

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    Carolyn E. Reed, B. Hugh Dorman, and Francis G. Spinale. Assessment of right ventricular contractile performance after pulmonary resection.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 56(3):426–432, September

  9. [17]

    Carolyn E. Reed, B. Hugh Dorman, and Francis G. Spinale. Mechanisms of right ventricular dysfunction after pulmonary resection.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 62(1):225–232, July 1996. ISSN 0003-4975. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00258-5

    1996 doi

  10. [18]

    Rams, Robert W

    James J. Rams, Robert W. Harrison, Willard A. Fry, Peter V. Moulder, and William E. Adams. Oper- ative pulmonary artery pressure measurements as a guide to postoperative management and prognosis following pneumonectomy.Diseases of the Chest, 41(1):85–90, January 1962. ISSN 009...

    1962 doi

  11. [19]

    Reed, Francis G

    Carolyn E. Reed, Francis G. Spinale, and Fred A. Crawford. Effect of pulmonary resection on right ventricular function.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 53(4):578–582, April 1992. ISSN 00034975. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(92)90314-T

    1992 doi

  12. [20]

    Morihito Okada, Masayoshi Okada, Noboru Ishii, Chojiro Yamashita, Takaki Sugimoto, Kenji Okada, Hiroyuki Yamagishi, Teruo Yamashita, and Hitoshi Matsuda. Right ventricular ejection fraction in the preoperative risk evaluation of candidates for pulmonary resection.The Journal o...

    1996

  13. [21]

    Cardiopulmonary function after pulmonary lobectomy in patients with lung cancer.Ann Thorac Surg, 1993

    Hideki Nishimura, Masayuki Haniuda, Masami Morimoto, and Keishi Kubo. Cardiopulmonary function after pulmonary lobectomy in patients with lung cancer.Ann Thorac Surg, 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    Pulmonary artery wave reflection and right ventricular function after lung resection.British Journal of Anaesthesia, 130(1): e128–e136, January 2023

    Adam Glass, Philip McCall, Alex Arthur, Kenneth Mangion, and Ben Shelley. Pulmonary artery wave reflection and right ventricular function after lung resection.British Journal of Anaesthesia, 130(1): e128–e136, January 2023. ISSN 0007-0912. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.052

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Cardiovascular computed tomography findings after pneumonectomy.Academic Radiology, 24(7):860–866, July 2017

    Maximilian Rauch, Milka Marinova, Hans Heinz Schild, and Holger Strunk. Cardiovascular computed tomography findings after pneumonectomy.Academic Radiology, 24(7):860–866, July 2017. ISSN 10766332. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.01.020

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Burt, Nancy Roistacher, Ruth A

    David Amar, Michael E. Burt, Nancy Roistacher, Ruth A. Reinsel, Robert J. Ginsberg, and Roger S. Wilson. Value of perioperative doppler echocardiography in patients undergoing major lung re- section.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 61(2):516–520, February 1996. ISSN 0003-4975. ...

    1996 doi

  17. [25]

    Banashree Mandal, Vikas Dutta, Balbir Kumar, Alok Kumar, Rajarajan Ganesan, and Imran H Bhat. Echocardiographic evaluation of right ventricular function in the immediate postoperative period after major pulmonary resections: A prospective observational study.Journal of Periope...

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Theodosios Korakianitis and Yubing Shi. A concentrated parameter model for the human cardiovascular system including heart valve dynamics and atrioventricular interaction.Medical Engineering & Physics, 28(7):613–628, September 2006. ISSN 13504533. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2005...

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    Review of zero-d and 1-d models of blood flow in the cardiovascular system.BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 10(1):33, April 2011

    Yubing Shi, Patricia Lawford, and Rodney Hose. Review of zero-d and 1-d models of blood flow in the cardiovascular system.BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 10(1):33, April 2011. ISSN 1475-925X. doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-10-33

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Mescher and Luiz Carlos Uchôa Junqueira.Junqueira’s basic histology: text and atlas

    Anthony L. Mescher and Luiz Carlos Uchôa Junqueira.Junqueira’s basic histology: text and atlas. Mcgraw-Hill Education, New York, fifteenth edition edition, 2018. ISBN 978-1-260-02618-4

    2018

  21. [29]

    On deriving lumped models for blood flow and pressure in the systemic arteries

    Mette S Olufsen and Ali Nadim. On deriving lumped models for blood flow and pressure in the systemic arteries

  22. [30]

    Hiroyuki Suga, Kiichi Sagawa, and Artin A. Shoukas. Load independence of the instantaneous pressure- volume ratio of the canine left ventricle and effects of epinephrine and heart rate on the ratio.Circulation Research, 32(3):314–322, March 1973. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.32.3.314

    1973 doi

  23. [31]

    Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supportedcanineleftventricle.Circulation Research, 35(1):117–126, July1974

    Hiroyuki Suga and Kiichi Sagawa. Instantaneous pressure-volume relationships and their ratio in the excised, supportedcanineleftventricle.Circulation Research, 35(1):117–126, July1974. ISSN0009-7330, 1524-4571. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.35.1.117

    doi

  24. [32]

    J. P. Mynard, M. R. Davidson, D. J. Penny, and J. J. Smolich. A simple, versatile valve model for use in lumped parameter and one-dimensional cardiovascular models.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 28(6–7):626–641, June 2012. ISSN 2040-7939...

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Stergiopulos, J

    N. Stergiopulos, J. J. Meister, and N. Westerhof. Determinants of stroke volume and systolic and diastolic aortic pressure.American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 270(6): H2050–H2059, June 1996. ISSN 0363-6135, 1522-1539. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1996.270.6.H2050

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    D. C. Chung, S. C. Niranjan, J. W. Clark, A. Bidani, W. E. Johnston, J. B. Zwischenberger, and D. L. Traber. A dynamic model of ventricular interaction and pericardial influence.American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 272(6):H2942–H2962, June 1997. ISS...

    1997

  27. [35]

    Young and Frank Y

    Donald F. Young and Frank Y. Tsai. Flow characteristics in models of arterial stenoses — ii. unsteady flow.Journal of Biomechanics, 6(5):547–559, September 1973. ISSN 0021-9290. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(73)90012-2

    1973 doi

  28. [36]

    Owashi, Arnaud Hubert, Elena Galli, Erwan Donal, Alfredo I

    Kimi P. Owashi, Arnaud Hubert, Elena Galli, Erwan Donal, Alfredo I. Hernandez, and Virginie Le Rolle. Model-based estimation of left ventricular pressure and myocardial work in aortic stenosis.PLOS ONE, 15(3):e0229609, mar 2020. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.022960...

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    James M. Norton. Toward consistent definitions for preload and afterload.Advances in Physiology Education, 25(1):53–61, March 2001. ISSN 1043-4046, 1522-1229. doi: 10.1152/advances.2001.25.1.53

    2001 doi

  30. [39]

    Westerhof

    Nico Westerhof, Jan-Willem Lankhaar, and Berend E. Westerhof. The arterial windkessel.Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 47(2):131–141, February 2009. ISSN 0140-0118, 1741-0444. doi: 10.1007/s11517-008-0359-2

    2009 doi

  31. [40]

    An artificial arterial system for pumping hearts.Journal of Applied Physiology, 31(5):776–781, November 1971

    N Westerhof, G Elzinga, and P Sipkema. An artificial arterial system for pumping hearts.Journal of Applied Physiology, 31(5):776–781, November 1971. ISSN 8750-7587, 1522-1601. doi: 10.1152/jappl. 1971.31.5.776. 25

    1971 doi

  32. [41]

    Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J

    Pauli Virtanen, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, Pearu Peterson, Warren Weckesser, Jonathan Bright, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Matthew Brett, Joshua Wilson, K. Jarrod Millman, Nikolay Mayorov, Andrew R. J. Nelson, E...

    2020

  33. [42]

    Luca Formaggia, Alfio Quarteroni, and Alessandro Veneziani.Cardiovascular Mathematics: Modeling and Simulation of the Circulatory System, volume 1. 01 2009. ISBN 978-88-470-1151-9. doi: 10.1007/ 978-88-470-1152-6

    2009

  34. [43]

    Closed-loop real-time simulation model of hemodynamics and oxygen transport in the cardiovascu- lar system.BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 12(1):69, July 2013

    Michael Broomé, Elira Maksuti, Anna Bjällmark, Björn Frenckner, and Birgitta Janerot-Sjöberg. Closed-loop real-time simulation model of hemodynamics and oxygen transport in the cardiovascu- lar system.BioMedical Engineering OnLine, 12(1):69, July 2013. ISSN 1475-925X. doi: 10....

    2013

  35. [44]

    Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates

    I.M Sobol. Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 55(1–3):271–280, February 2001. ISSN 03784754. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4754(00)00270-6

    2001 doi

  36. [45]

    G. E. B. Archer, A. Saltelli, and I. M. Sobol. Sensitivity measures,anova-like techniques and the use of bootstrap.Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 58(2):99–120, May 1997. ISSN 0094-9655, 1563-5163. doi: 10.1080/00949659708811825

    1997 doi

  37. [46]

    Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output

    Andrea Saltelli, Paola Annoni, Ivano Azzini, Francesca Campolongo, Marco Ratto, and Stefano Taran- tola. Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. design and estimator for the total sensitiv- ity index.Computer Physics Communications, 181(2):259–270, February 2010. ...

    2010 doi

  38. [47]

    SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis.The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(9), jan 2017

    Jon Herman and Will Usher. SALib: An open-source python library for sensitivity analysis.The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(9), jan 2017. doi: 10.21105/joss.00097. URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.00097

    2017 doi

  39. [48]

    Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility andinterpretabilityofglobalsensitivityanalyses.Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 4:18155, May

    Takuya Iwanaga, William Usher, and Jonathan Herman. Toward SALib 2.0: Advancing the accessibility andinterpretabilityofglobalsensitivityanalyses.Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling, 4:18155, May

  40. [49]

    Hall, Michael E

    John E. Hall, Michael E. Hall, and Arthur C. Guyton.Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology. Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, 14th edition edition, 2021. ISBN 978-0-323-59712-8

    2021

  41. [50]

    Adaptation to mechanical load determines shape and properties of heart and circulation: the circadapt model

    Theo Arts, Tammo Delhaas, Peter Bovendeerd, Xander Verbeek, and Frits W Prinzen. Adaptation to mechanical load determines shape and properties of heart and circulation: the circadapt model. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 288(4):H1943–H1954, 2005

    2005

  42. [51]

    HarperCollins Publishers, 1980

    Noble O Fowler.Cardiac Diagnosis and Treatment. HarperCollins Publishers, 1980. 26

    1980

  43. [1539]

    doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1997.272.6.H2942

    1997 doi

  44. [1993]

    doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)90874-H

    ISSN 00034975. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)90874-H

    doi

  45. [2022]

    URLhttps://sesmo.org/article/view/18155

    doi: 10.18174/sesmo.18155. URLhttps://sesmo.org/article/view/18155

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.