MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534383266 · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2016.08.049

Ccoffinn: Automated Wave Tracking in Cultured Cardiac Monolayers

2016· article· en· W2534383266 on OpenAlexaff
Jakub Tomek, Rebecca A.B. Burton, Gil Bub

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsWavefrontOptical mappingDetectorComputer scienceSegmentationCMOSMonolayerTracking (education)Bandwidth (computing)SoftwareVisualizationArtificial intelligenceComputer visionElectronic engineeringReal-time computingOptoelectronicsPhysicsOpticsMaterials scienceTelecommunicationsNanotechnologyEngineeringMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac arrhythmias are one of the most frequent causes of death worldwide. A popular biological model used to study arrhythmogenesis is the cultured cardiac cell monolayer, which provides a good trade-off between physiological relevance and experimental access. Excitation wave patterns are imaged using high-bandwidth detectors, producing large data sets that are typically analyzed manually. To make such analysis less time consuming and less subjective, we have designed and implemented a toolkit for segmentation and tracking of cardiac waves in optical mapping recordings. The toolkit is optimized for high-resolution detectors to accommodate the growing availability of inexpensive high-resolution detectors for life science imaging applications (e.g., scientific CMOS cameras). The software extracts key features of propagating waves, such as wavefront speed and entropy. The methods have been validated using synthetic data, and real-world examples are provided, showing a difference in conduction velocity between two different types of cardiac cell cultures.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiophysical JournalSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207