Combining wet and dry research: experience with model development for cardiac mechano-electric structure-function studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the development of the first mathematical cardiac cell model 50 years ago, computational modelling has become an increasingly powerful tool for the analysis of data and for the integration of information related to complex cardiac behaviour. Current models build on decades of iteration between experiment and theory, representing a collective understanding of cardiac function. All models, whether computational, experimental, or conceptual, are simplified representations of reality and, like tools in a toolbox, suitable for specific applications. Their range of applicability can be explored (and expanded) by iterative combination of 'wet' and 'dry' investigation, where experimental or clinical data are used to first build and then validate computational models (allowing integration of previous findings, quantitative assessment of conceptual models, and projection across relevant spatial and temporal scales), while computational simulations are utilized for plausibility assessment, hypotheses-generation, and prediction (thereby defining further experimental research targets). When implemented effectively, this combined wet/dry research approach can support the development of a more complete and cohesive understanding of integrated biological function. This review illustrates the utility of such an approach, based on recent examples of multi-scale studies of cardiac structure and mechano-electric function.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it