Simulations of the human atrial action potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two independent mathematical models of the electrophysiology of the human atrial cell have been published. Although these two models are based on very similar data, they can result in some apparently contradictory findings, some of which are of fundamental importance to human atrial electrophysiology and pharmacology. In particular, simulations with these two models have given rise to different conclusions regarding the role of the rapidly activating sustained outward K+ current, Isus, in determining the action–potential duration. Different conclusions regarding the rate dependence of the action potential have also been published. In this paper, we review and compare these two models in an attempt to determine the reasons for these discrepancies. The individual ion current characterizations are quite similar in the two models. The primary difference between the models is in the assumed baseline actionpotential shape, and therefore the sizes of the underlying ionic currents. The duration of spike–and–dome–type action potentials, which rely mainly on the delayed rectifier currents, IKr and IKs, for final repolarization, is relatively insensitive to block of Isus. In contrast,rtrianguslar action potentials are prolonged substantially by Isus block, since they rely more on Isus for final repolarization. The rate–dependent properties of spike–and–dome action potentials can be explained in terms of their larger ICaL (L–type calcium current), IKr and IKs currents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".