MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A novel technique for estimating the compact myocardium in fishes reveals surprising results for an athletic air‐breathing fish, the Pacific tarpon

2007· article· en· W1976729380 on OpenAlexaff
A. P. Farrell, D. L. Simonot, R. S. Seymour, Thomas D. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonBiologyVentricleCoronary circulationInternal medicineBreathingCardiologyAnatomyFisheryMedicineEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method for quickly assessing the relative proportion of compact myocardium in the ventricle of teleosts is introduced and used in juvenile Pacific tarpon Megalops cyprinoides , a member of the only air‐breathing elopomorph teleost genus. The proportion of compact myocardium increased with body mass, reaching up to 60% of the ventricular mass. The finding for tarpon was a surprising discovery since recent literature has suggested that air breathing evolved primarily as means of supplying oxygen to the fish heart during activity. The present data, which represent the first quantitative assessment of the compact myocardium for any air‐breathing fish, suggest that myocardial oxygen supply in the tarpon is supplemented by the coronary circulation associated with compact myocardium during exercise, while air breathing is important during aquatic hypoxia. Compact myocardium was also measured as a point of reference in an extant representative from a more ancient fish lineage than the elopomorphs, the water‐breathing spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias and found to be only 9% of ventricular mass. In conclusion, the presence of a coronary circulation in extant elasmobranchs may mean that the coronary circulation evolved well before air breathing in fishes and, for tarpon at least, the coronary oxygen supply to the ventricular myocardium has not necessarily been superseded by air breathing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207