The Role of Purkinje-Myocardial Coupling during Ventricular Arrhythmia: A Modeling Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Purkinje system is the fast conduction network of the heart which couples to the myocardium at discrete sites called Purkinje-Myocyte Junctions (PMJs). However, the distribution and number of PMJs remains elusive, as does whether a particular PMJ is functional. We hypothesized that the Purkinje system plays a role during reentry and that the number of functional PMJs affect reentry dynamics. We used a computer finite element model of rabbit ventricles in which we varied the number of PMJs. Sustained, complex reentry was induced by applying an electric shock and the role of the Purkinje system in maintaining the arrhythmia was assessed by analyzing phase singularities, frequency of activation, and bidirectional propagation at PMJs. For larger junctional resistances, increasing PMJ density increased the mean firing rate in the Purkinje system, the percentage of successful retrograde conduction at PMJs, and the incidence of wave break on the epicardium. However, the mean firing of the ventricles was not affected. Furthermore, increasing PMJ density above 13/[Formula: see text] did not alter reentry dynamics. For lower junctional resistances, the trend was not as clear. We conclude that Purkinje system topology affects reentry dynamics and conditions which alter PMJ density can alter reentry dynamics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".