MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335411144 · doi:10.1016/j.joa.2016.02.009

Cardiac dynamics: Alternans and arrhythmogenesis

2016· review· en· W2335411144 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arrhythmia · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersDepartment of Biochemistry, University of CambridgeBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsRestitutionRepolarizationMedicineCardiologyRefractory periodInternal medicineSudden cardiac deathEffective refractory periodNeuroscienceElectrophysiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre-existing heterogeneities present in cardiac tissue are essential for maintaining the normal electrical and mechanical functions of the heart. Exacerbation of such heterogeneities or the emergence of dynamic factors can produce repolarization alternans, which are beat-to-beat alternations in the action potential time course. Traditionally, this was explained by restitution, but additional factors, such as cardiac memory, calcium handling dynamics, refractory period restitution, and mechano-electric feedback, are increasingly recognized as the underlying causes. The aim of this article is to review the mechanisms that generate cardiac repolarization alternans and convert spatially concordant alternans to the more arrhythmogenic spatially discordant alternans. This is followed by a discussion on how alternans generate arrhythmias in a number of clinical scenarios, and concluded by an outline of future therapeutic targets for anti-arrhythmic therapy.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.289 · 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