Population of computational rabbit-specific ventricular action potential models for investigating sources of variability in cellular repolarisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variability is observed at all levels of cardiac electrophysiology. Yet, the underlying causes and importance of this variability are generally unknown, and difficult to investigate with current experimental techniques. The aim of the present study was to generate populations of computational ventricular action potential models that reproduce experimentally observed intercellular variability of repolarisation (represented by action potential duration) and to identify its potential causes. A systematic exploration of the effects of simultaneously varying the magnitude of six transmembrane current conductances (transient outward, rapid and slow delayed rectifier K+, inward rectifying K+, L-type Ca2+, and Na+/K+ pump currents) in two rabbit-specific ventricular action potential models (Shannon et al. and Mahajan et al.) at multiple cycle lengths (400, 600, 1,000 ms) was performed. This was accomplished with distributed computing software specialised for multi-dimensional parameter sweeps and grid execution. An initial population of 15,625 parameter sets was generated for both models at each cycle length. Action potential durations of these populations were compared to experimentally derived ranges for rabbit ventricular myocytes. 1,352 parameter sets for the Shannon model and 779 parameter sets for the Mahajan model yielded action potential duration within the experimental range, demonstrating that a wide array of ionic conductance values can be used to simulate a physiological rabbit ventricular action potential. Furthermore, by using clutter-based dimension reordering, a technique that allows visualisation of multi-dimensional spaces in two dimensions, the interaction of current conductances and their relative importance to the ventricular action potential at different cycle lengths were revealed. Overall, this work represents an important step towards a better understanding of the role that variability in current conductances may play in experimentally observed intercellular variability of rabbit ventricular action potential repolarisation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".