MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569224154 · doi:10.1515/jbcpp-2016-0110

Isolated heart models for studying cardiac electrophysiology: a historical perspective and recent advances

2017· review· en· W2569224154 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Ming Yeo, Vivian Tse, Judy Kung, Hiu Yu Lin, Yee Ting Lee, Joseph Kwan, Bryan P. Yan, Gary Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac electrophysiologyPerspective (graphical)NeurosciencePerfusionMedicineComputational biologyComputer scienceCardiologyElectrophysiologyBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental models used in cardiovascular research range from cellular to whole heart preparations. Isolated whole hearts show higher levels of structural and functional integration than lower level models such as tissues or cellular fragments. Cardiovascular diseases are multi-factorial problems that are dependent on highly organized structures rather than on molecular or cellular components alone. This article first provides a general introduction on the animal models of cardiovascular diseases. It is followed by a detailed overview and a historical perspective of the different isolated heart systems with a particular focus on the Langendorff perfusion method for the study of cardiac arrhythmias. The choice of species, perfusion method, and perfusate composition are discussed in further detail with particular considerations of the theoretical and practical aspects of experimental settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207