Of circles and spirals: Bridging the gap between the leading circle and spiral wave concepts of cardiac reentry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The "leading circle model" was the first detailed attempt at understanding the mechanisms of functional reentry, and remains a widely-used notion in cardiac electrophysiology. The "spiral wave" concept was developed more recently as a result of modern theoretical analysis and is the basis for consideration of reentry mechanisms in present biophysical theory. The goal of this paper is to present these models in a way that is comprehensible to both the biophysical and electrophysiology communities, with the idea of helping clinical and experimental electrophysiologists to understand better the spiral wave concept and of helping biophysicists to understand why the leading circle concept is so attractive and widely used by electrophysiologists. To this end, the main properties of the leading circle and spiral wave models of reentry are presented. Their basic assumptions and determinants are discussed and the predictions of the two concepts with respect to pharmacological responses of arrhythmias are reviewed. A major difference between them lies in the predicted responses to Na(+)-channel blockade, for which the spiral wave paradigm appears more closely to correspond to the results of clinical and experimental observations. The basis of this difference is explored in the context of the fundamental properties of the models.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it