Variability in cardiac electrophysiology: Using experimentally-calibrated populations of models to move beyond the single virtual physiological human paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological variability manifests itself via differences in physiological function between individuals of the same species, and has crucial implications in disease progression and treatment. Despite its importance, physiological variability has traditionally been ignored in experimental and computational investigations due to averaging over samples from multiple individuals. Recently, modelling frameworks have been devised for studying mechanisms underlying physiological variability in cardiac electrophysiology and pro-arrhythmic risk under a variety of conditions and for several animal species as well as human. One such methodology exploits populations of cardiac cell models constrained with experimental data, or experimentally-calibrated populations of models. In this review, we outline the considerations behind constructing an experimentally-calibrated population of models and review the studies that have employed this approach to investigate variability in cardiac electrophysiology in physiological and pathological conditions, as well as under drug action. We also describe the methodology and compare it with alternative approaches for studying variability in cardiac electrophysiology, including cell-specific modelling approaches, sensitivity-analysis based methods, and populations-of-models frameworks that do not consider the experimental calibration step. We conclude with an outlook for the future, predicting the potential of new methodologies for patient-specific modelling extending beyond the single virtual physiological human paradigm.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".