Monophasic action potential recordings: which is the recording electrode?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to provide an overview of current debate on the monophasic action potential (MAP) recording technique, specifically whether the depolarizing or the reference electrode is responsible for recording the MAP waveform. A literature search was made using key words including monophasic action potential, MAP, electrophysiological basis, recording electrode, depolarizing electrode, contact electrode, indifferent electrode, and reference electrode. References from articles were screened for additional relevant papers. Articles published by the different experimental groups claim that depolarizing electrode, but not reference electrode, records MAPs from the myocardium. This can be more accurately described when considering biophysical theory, which states that MAP is a bipolar signal with contributions from not only the depolarizing electrode but also remote activation at the reference electrode. It is not meaningful to claim that one is the recording electrode because potential differences must be measured between two points in space. Nevertheless, the MAP technique is useful for assessing the local electrical activity of the myocardium in contact with the depolarizing electrode. It is important to have the recording electrode in close proximity with the reference electrode to minimize contamination from far-field signals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".