Innovation and the Role of the Cardiac Morphologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THIS SUPPLEMENT DEVOTED TO INNOvation, it is, perhaps, unusual to be considering the description of revelations in cardiac morphology. Those investigating the structure of the normal and congenitally malformed heart in the 21st century, in terms of gross morphology, can do little more than those such as Leonardo 1 . He, and fellow morphologists, initially revealed most of the secrets of normal cardiac structure by careful dissection of hearts obtained at cardiac autopsy. In the light of centuries of subsequent investigation, it is surprising that so many issues regarding the structure of not only congenitally malformed hearts, but also the normal heart, remain contentious. To take but one example, interpretations vary with regard to the precise nature and description of that part of the subpulmonary infundibulum adjacent to the aortic root. Much of this discussion devolves on the topology of the conal, or muscular outlet, septum, a feature that underscores some categorizations of holes between the ventricles. erhaps the most important innovatory role of the morphologist, therefore, is to seek to discover the reasons for ongoing differences in interpretation, and hopefully to resolve them, combining in this endeavour with those expert in visualizing cardiac structures during life. It is also to be hoped that morphologists will accept the necessity to change any previous concepts revealed, with the passage of time, to be less than perfect. In this review, therefore, we will explore the innovative potential of describing the topology and morphology of the normal ventricular septum, showing how such analysis potentially provides the basis for a noncontentious categorization of the various forms of holes that can exist between the cavities of the ventricles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".