Regional Differences in Ventricular Fibrillation in the Open-Chest Porcine Left Ventricle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been hypothesized that during ventricular fibrillation (VF), the fastest activating region, the dominant domain, contains a stable reentrant circuit called a mother rotor. This hypothesis postulates that the mother rotor spawns wavefronts that propagate to maintain VF elsewhere and implies that the ratio of wavefronts propagating off a region to those propagating onto it (propoff/propon) should be >1 for the dominant domain but <1 elsewhere. To test this prediction in the left ventricular (LV) epicardium of a large animal, most of the LV free wall was mapped with 1008 electrodes in 7 pigs. VF activation rate was faster in the posterior than in the anterior LV (10.0+/-1.3Hz versus 9.3+/-1.3Hz; P<0.001). The anterior LV had a higher fraction of wavefronts that blocked than did the posterior LV and had a propoff/propon ratio <1 (P<0.001). The mean conduction velocity vectors of the VF wavefronts pointed in the direction from the posterior to the anterior LV. Although these findings favor a dominant domain in the posterior LV, the facts that the anterior LV had a higher incidence of reentry than did the posterior LV and that the posterior LV did not have propoff/propon significantly different from 1 do not. Thus, quantitative regional differences are present over the porcine LV epicardium during VF. Although these differences are not totally consistent with the presence of a dominant domain within the LV free wall, the mean conduction velocity vector is consistent with one in the septum.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".