MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112212136 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2005.855707

Analytic Solution of the Anisotropic Bidomain Equations for Myocardial Tissue: The Effect of Adjoining Conductive Regions

2005· article· en· W2112212136 on OpenAlexaff
John Clements, B. Milan Horáček

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBidomain modelPhysicsAnisotropyIsotropyMathematical analysisBoundary value problemPlane (geometry)InverseElectrical resistivity and conductivityElectrical conductorGeometryMathematicsOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anisotropic bidomain model for the propagation of electrical activation in the human myocardium H consists of coupled elliptic-parabolic partial differential equations for the transmembrane potential Vm, intracellular potential phi(i), and extracellular potential phi(e) in H, together with quasi-static equations for the potential distribution phiB in the surrounding (passive) isotropic extracardiac regions B. Four local parameters sigma((i,e) (l,t)) specify the conductivities in the longitudinal (l) and transverse (t) directions with respect to cardiac muscle fibers. Continuous current flow is required at the interface S(H) between H and B. We derive analytic formulas for Vm, phi(e), phi(i), and phiB for plane wave propagation in a uniformly anisotropic slab surmounted by a homogeneous region of conductivity sigmaB. No assumptions are required regarding the anisotropy ratios of the conductivity coefficients. The properties of these solutions are examined with a view to providing insight into the effect of the passive region B on the propagation of Vm and phi(e) in H. We show that for a suitably chosen boundary condition, the problem can be reduced to solving the bidomain equations in H alone.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207