Role of Compact Node and Posterior Extension in Direction‐Dependent Changes in Atrioventricular Nodal Function in Rabbit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: AV nodal conduction properties differ in the anterograde versus the retrograde direction. The underlying substrate remains unclear. We propose that direction-dependent changes in AV nodal function are the net result of those occurring in the slow and fast pathways. METHODS AND RESULTS: Anterograde and retrograde AV nodal properties were determined with a premature protocol before and after posterior extension (slow pathway) ablation, and before and after upper compact node (fast pathway) ablation. Each ablation was performed in a different group of six rabbit heart preparations. In control, nodal minimum conduction time (NCTmin) and effective refractory period (ERPN) typically were longer, and maximum conduction time (NCTmax) was shorter in the retrograde compared to the anterograde direction. Posterior extension ablation prolonged anterograde ERPN from 91 +/- 10 ms to 141 +/- 15 ms (P < 0.01) and shortened NCTmax from 150 +/- 13 ms to 82 +/- 7 ms (P < 0.01) but did not affect retrograde conduction. Thus, the posterior extension normally contributes to the anterograde but not retrograde recovery curve. Compact node ablation prolonged anterograde conduction (NCTmin increased from 57 +/- 2 ms to 73 +/- 7 ms, P < 0.01) but did not alter ERPN and NCTmax. This ablation abolished retrograde conduction in two preparations and resulted in retrograde slow pathway conduction in four, the latter being interrupted by posterior extension ablation. Thus, the compact node accounts for the baseline of the recovery curve in both directions. Ablation of the compact node results in anterograde slow pathway conduction over the entire cycle length range and may result in retrograde slow pathway conduction. CONCLUSION: Direction-dependent properties of the AV node arise from those of the compact node-based fast pathway and posterior extension-based slow pathway. Normal AV node has bidirectional dual pathways.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".