MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995005951 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2002.026468

Regulation of cardiac excitation–contraction coupling by action potential repolarization: role of the transient outward potassium current (<i>I</i><sub>to</sub>)

2003· review· en· W1995005951 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajan Sah, Rafael J. Ramírez, Gavin Y. Oudit, Dominica Gidrewicz, Maria G. Trivieri, Carsten Zobel, Peter H. Backx

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of Toronto
FundersDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchStiftung VERUM
KeywordsRepolarizationCardiac transient outward potassium currentExcitation–contraction couplingCardiac action potentialContraction (grammar)Potassium channelVentricular action potentialPotassiumTransient (computer programming)ChemistryInternal medicineCardiologyBiophysicsElectrophysiologyMedicineMyocytePatch clampBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cardiac action potential (AP) is critical for initiating and coordinating myocyte contraction. In particular, the early repolarization period of the AP (phase 1) strongly influences the time course and magnitude of the whole-cell intracellular Ca(2+) transient by modulating trans-sarcolemmal Ca(2+) influx through L-type Ca(2+) channels (I(Ca,L)) and Na-Ca exchangers (I(Ca,NCX)). The transient outward potassium current (I(to)) has kinetic properties that make it especially effective in modulating the trajectory of phase 1 repolarization and thereby cardiac excitation-contraction coupling (ECC). The magnitude of I(to) varies greatly during cardiac development, between different regions of the heart, and is invariably reduced as a result of heart disease, leading to corresponding variations in ECC. In this article, we review evidence supporting a modulatory role of I(to) in ECC through its influence on I(Ca,L), and possibly I(Ca,NCX). We also discuss differential effects of I(to) on ECC between different species, between different regions of the heart and in heart disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations252
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207