Heart wall myofibers are arranged in minimal surfaces to optimize organ function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart wall myofibers wind as helices around the ventricles, strengthening them in a manner analogous to the reinforcement of concrete cylindrical columns by spiral steel cables [Richart FE, et al. (1929) Univ of Illinois, Eng Exp Stn Bull 190]. A multitude of such fibers, arranged smoothly and regularly, contract and relax as an integrated functional unit as the heart beats. To orchestrate this motion, fiber tangling must be avoided and pumping should be efficient. Current models of myofiber orientation across the heart wall suggest groupings into sheets or bands, but the precise geometry of bundles of myofibers is unknown. Here we show that this arrangement takes the form of a special minimal surface, the generalized helicoid [Blair DE, Vanstone JR (1978) Minimal Submanifolds and Geodesics 13-16], closing the gap between individual myofibers and their collective wall structure. The model holds across species, with a smooth variation in its three curvature parameters within the myocardial wall providing tight fits to diffusion magnetic resonance images from the rat, the dog, and the human. Mathematically it explains how myofibers are bundled in the heart wall while economizing fiber length and optimizing ventricular ejection volume as they contract. The generalized helicoid provides a unique foundation for analyzing the fibrous composite of the heart wall and should therefore find applications in heart tissue engineering and in the study of heart muscle diseases.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".