Rabbit-specific computational modelling of ventricular cell electrophysiology: Using populations of models to explore variability in the response to ischemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational modelling, combined with experimental investigations, is a powerful method for investigating complex cardiac electrophysiological behaviour. The use of rabbit-specific models, due to the similarities of cardiac electrophysiology in this species with human, is especially prevalent. In this paper, we first briefly review rabbit-specific computational modelling of ventricular cell electrophysiology, multi-cellular simulations including cellular heterogeneity, and acute ischemia. This mini-review is followed by an original computational investigation of variability in the electrophysiological response of two experimentally-calibrated populations of rabbit-specific ventricular myocyte action potential models to acute ischemia. We performed a systematic exploration of the response of the model populations to varying degrees of ischemia and individual ischemic parameters, to investigate their individual and combined effects on action potential duration and refractoriness. This revealed complex interactions between model population variability and ischemic factors, which combined to enhance variability during ischemia. This represents an important step towards an improved understanding of the role that physiological variability may play in electrophysiological alterations during acute ischemia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".