Dependence of AV Nodal Function Curves on the Selected Recovery Index: Pivotal Role of Pretest Conduction Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rate-dependent AV nodal function is often assessed with premature protocols. Conduction curves generated from nodal responses differ with the selected recovery index (atrial-atrial, AA, or His-atrial interval, HA). We propose that these differences arise from changes in pretest conduction time that affect nodal recovery time assessment. METHODS AND RESULTS: We varied the basic (S(1)S(1)), pretest (S(1)S(2)), and test (S(2)S(3)) cycle length with S(1)S(2)S(3) protocols, and analyzed nodal responses as AA (A(3)H(3) vs A(2)A(3)) and HA (A(3)H(3) vs H(2)A(3)) curves in six rabbit heart preparations. Any A(2)H(2) (pretest conduction time) prolongation bodily shifted AA curve rightward and HA curve leftward, regardless of prevailing basic cycle length. A prolonged A(2)H(2) caused all A(3)H(3) to occur at longer A(2)A(3) and shorter H(2)A(3,) as compared with control. When corrected for these shifts, AA and HA curves displayed similar recovery and fatigue properties. To further investigate the possibility that nodal recovery time varies beyond that imposed by pacing interval, six additional preparations were subjected to 5-minute frequency step protocols during which a long cycle was introduced after every 30th short cycle. After each long cycle, nodal conduction time increased progressively despite the constant short cycle length and fatigue level. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in the pretest conduction time play a pivotal role in apparent recovery-index-dependent differences in rate-dependent AV nodal function by shifting AA and HA curves in opposite directions along the x-axis. When corrected for pretest effects, AA and HA curves display similar rate-dependent AV nodal function with recovery and fatigue as main properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".