Cardiac mechano-electric coupling: a role in regulating normal function of the heart?: Figure 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘Synchronization of repolarization by mechano-electrical coupling in the porcine heart’ by T. Opthof et al ., doi:10.1093/cvr/cvv140. At the most basic level, the heart is an electrically controlled pump. As such, our attention tends to focus on the feed-forward mechanisms by which cardiac excitation, occurring through co-ordinated ion channel activity, leads to the calcium signal necessary for contraction. Yet, it is becoming clear that the heart is intrinsically regulated, including feedback from its mechanical state to ion channel function, electrical conduction, and calcium–myofilament interactions. This essential aspect of intra-cardiac regulation, originally termed Mechano-Electric Feedback, is now more generally known as Mechano-Electric Coupling (MEC).1 MEC might seem to be an evolutionary quirk or physiological epiphenomenon. It is now understood, however, to be important in numerous cardiac diseases, for instance contributing to the electrophysiological effects of non-uniform contraction, the reduced arrhythmia threshold accompanying atrial or ventricular enlargement, and the impact of pulmonary vein loading on atrial fibrillation.2 Yet this says nothing about its importance in the healthy heart. Does MEC play a role in regulating normal cardiac function? The first evidence that MEC may be important for cardiac auto-regulation came 100 years ago, with Francis Arthur Bainbridge's observation that right-atrial distension in anaesthetized dogs results in an acute increase in heart rate. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".