MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2023923619

The positive T wave.

2007· article· en· W2023923619 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Potse, Ruben Coronel, Tobias Opthof, Alain Vinet

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsT waveCardiologyInternal medicinePhysicsMedicineElectrocardiography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The instant of maximum slope (Tup) of the T wave in the unipolar electrogram is a well-established measure of repolarisation time (TR). Nevertheless, recent observations on positive T waves have caused a renewed debate. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the mechanism that leads to positive and negative T waves and to investigate which electrogram feature best predicts TR. METHODS: We simulated propagating action potentials (AP) and electrograms with a bidomain reaction-diffusion model of the human heart including heterogeneous ion-channel properties. To explain positive T waves we compared results with those of a much simpler model, which predicts T waves from local and remote AP. RESULTS: Repolarisation time was defined as the instant of steepest downstroke of the AP. T wave polarity was mostly determined by TR. Positive T waves occurred at early-repolarising sites. Correlation between Tup and TR was >0.99, in both negative and positive T waves. T wave area and peak value also correlated highly with TR. CONCLUSION: The polarity of the T wave is primarily determined by TR. Positive T waves occur at early-repolarising sites. Local TR is best estimated by Tup, also in positive T waves.

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)0.002
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0080.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→