MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular Motion and Cardiac Muscle Motor Dynamics

2002· article· en· W2069185354 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Landesberg, YOLANDA LANDESBERG, S. Sideman, Henk E.D.J. ter Keurs

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsKineticsMyosinActinMolecular motorDynamics (music)MotilityDissociation (chemistry)BiophysicsProtein filamentChemistryReceptor–ligand kineticsMyosin headMolecular dynamicsBiologyBiochemistryCell biologyPhysicsMyosin light-chain kinaseComputational chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on the kinetics of molecular motion in cardiac (and skeletal) muscles, studied by image analysis of the motility assay of an isolated actin filament sliding over isolated myosin heads that perform as linear motors. Image analysis allows us to study the dynamics of the crossbridges (Xbs) formed by the interactions between the actin molecule and the myosin heads, and to explore the rate kinetics of the interactions between the two. A most significant result pertains to the identification and characterization of two kinds of kinetics involved in Xb dynamics. The analysis of the acquired images suggests that Xb dynamics is determined by two distinctive kinetic mechanisms: fast physical kinetics that relates to the actin-myosin Xb attachment and detachment cycle and a process that is orders of magnitude slower in biochemical kinetics that relates to the reactions of nucleotide binding and dissociation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicCardiomyopathy and Myosin StudiesFrench-language works237,207