MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050603099 · doi:10.1103/physreve.70.021909

Control of cardiac function and noise from a decaying power spectrum

2004· article· en· W2050603099 on OpenAlexaff
G. Kember, J. Andrew Armour, Gordon A. Fenton, A. Malhotra

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise (video)Spectrum (functional analysis)Function (biology)Statistical physicsSpectral densityPower (physics)PhysicsMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Cardiac function curveControl (management)Computer scienceMedicineQuantum mechanicsCardiologyStatisticsBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence is presented that adds to the debate surrounding the question: To what extent does neural control of cardiac output exploit noise? The transduction capability of cardiac afferent neurons, situated in and adjacent to the heart, is vital to feedback in control of cardiac function. An analysis of in situ cardiac afferent activity shows evidence of independent and exponentially distributed interspike intervals. An anatomical basis for such memoryless interspike intervals ultimately derives from the fact that each afferent neuron is associated with a field of sensory neurites, or bare nerve endings, that transduce local chemical and mechanical stimuli in a many-to-one fashion. As such, cardiac afferent neurons and their sensory neurite inputs are respectively modeled here by the Hodgkin-Huxley equations forced by "red" noise (decaying power spectrum) perturbing an otherwise constant subthreshold input. A variable barrier competition model is derived from these equations in order to address the question: How are noisy inputs being processed by sensory neurons to cause each spike? It is found that ion channels are responsible for significant input "whitening" (increased spectral power at higher frequency) through differentiation of the inputs. Such whitening is a means to distinguish low-frequency control signals from otherwise red noise fluctuations. Furthermore, spiking occurs when backward moving averages of the whitened inputs, over a window of the order of the sodium activation time scale, exceed an approximately constant barrier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207