MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177823166 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2015-0194

Simultaneous conduction mapping and intracellular membrane potential recording in isolated atria

2015· article· en· W2177823166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Neo, D.G. Morris, Paweł Kuklik, Dennis H. Lau, H. Dimitri, Wei‐Wen Lim, Prashanthan Sanders, David A. Saint

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsElectrophysiologyMicroelectrodeIntracellularMembrane potentialBiophysicsNerve conduction velocityStimulationMultielectrode arrayChemistryElectrodeBiomedical engineeringInternal medicineCardiologyMaterials scienceAnatomyMedicineBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a novel approach for simultaneously determining regional differences in action potential (AP) morphology and tissue electrophysiological properties in isolated atria. The epicardial surface of rat atrial preparations was placed in contact with a multi-electrode array (9 × 10 silver chloride electrodes, 0.1 mm diameter and 0.1 mm pitch). A glass microelectrode (100 MΩ) was simultaneously inserted into the endocardial surface to record intracellular AP from either of 2 regions (A, B) during pacing from 2 opposite corners of the tissue. AP duration at 80% of repolarisation and its restitution curve was significantly different only in region A (p < 0.01) when AP was initiated at different stimulation sites. Alternans in AP duration and AP amplitude, and in conduction velocity were observed during 2 separate arrhythmic episodes. This approach of combining microelectrode array and intracellular membrane potential recording may provide new insights into arrhythmogenic mechanisms in animal models of cardiovascular disease.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207