Rate‐Dependent AV Nodal Function: Closely Bound Conduction and Refractory Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The atrioventricular node (AV) node conducts slowly and filters atrial impulses. Puzzlingly, the recovery (conduction time vs atrial cycle length) and refractory curve (His bundle cycle length vs atrial cycle length) characterizing AV nodal function undergo disparate rate-dependent changes. We sought the functional origin and significance of these disparate changes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Differences between the recovery and refractory curve were assessed in 30 steady state AV nodal responses (all potential paired combinations between 5 basic and 6 pretest cycle lengths imposed with S(1)S(2)S(3) protocols) in rabbit heart preparations. Five of these responses corresponded to standard premature protocols. Both basic and pretest cycle length shortenings increased pretest conduction time that in turn equally shortened the ensuing His-atrial interval at all test cycle lengths. This effect was mathematically predictable and tended to shift the refractory curve downward whereas not affecting the recovery curve. Moreover, increases in pretest conduction time also shifted the recovery and refractory curve equally rightward on their x-axis, thereby biasing curve comparison between steady states. This problem could be overcome with equivalent results either by accordingly correcting the atrial cycle length or by using the His-atrial interval as the recovery index. CONCLUSION: Recovery and refractory curves from AV nodal steady state responses including standard premature protocols only differ by the His-atrial interval that decreases with the pretest conduction time. The latter also biases curve comparison between steady states. Rate-dependent AV nodal function is best assessed with recovery curves freed from changes in pretest conduction time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".