Synchrony in the amphibian lymphatic system: evidence for bilateral posterior lymph heart synchrony and cardiac–lymphatic synchrony in<i>Rana catesbeiana</i>and<i>Bufo marinus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early investigations into amphibian lymph heart function established that lymph heart contractions were synchronous with neither the systemic heart, nor the lungs, nor each other. However, the present study concludes that there is synchronization between the cardiac heart and the lymph hearts and that the posterior lymph hearts in both Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802 and Bufo marinus (L., 1758) beat synchronously as well. Pressure peaks were recorded through cannulation of the ischiatic artery and each posterior lymph heart and subsequently analyzed to determine the time differences between arterial diastole and lymph heart systole or between two bilateral lymph heart systoles. Results show that there is clear synchronization between the lymph heart systoles of two bilateral posterior lymph hearts. This lymph heart synchrony is further supported by using Poincaré plot analysis to visually compare the lymph heart inter-beats. Cardiac heart and lymph heart contractions also show a degree of synchronization, even though the lymph hearts beat up to three times as fast as the cardiac heart. These results support the conclusion that synchrony is characteristic of the anuran lymphatic system and that synchronization of the cardiac heart and the lymph hearts could impart an energetic advantage that benefits fluid homeostatic mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".