Combining wet and dry research: experience with model development for cardiac mechano-electric structure-function studies
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".