Regularity of beating of small clusters of embryonic chick ventricular heart-cells: experiment <i>vs.</i> stochastic single-channel population model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transmembrane potential is recorded from small isopotential clusters of 2–4 embryonic chick ventricular cells spontaneously generating action potentials. We analyze the cycle-to-cycle fluctuations in the time between successive action potentials (the interbeat interval or IBI). We also convert an existing model of electrical activity in the cluster, which is formulated as a Hodgkin–Huxley-like deterministic system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations describing five individual ionic currents, into a stochastic model consisting of a population of ∼20 000 independently and randomly gating ionic channels, with the randomness being set by a real physical stochastic process (radio static). This stochastic model, implemented using the Clay–DeFelice algorithm, reproduces the fluctuations seen experimentally: e.g., the coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean) of IBI is 4.3% in the model vs. the 3.9% average value of the 17 clusters studied. The model also replicates all but one of several other quantitative measures of the experimental results, including the power spectrum and correlation integral of the voltage, as well as the histogram, Poincaré plot, serial correlation coefficients, power spectrum, detrended fluctuation analysis, approximate entropy, and sample entropy of IBI. The channel noise from one particular ionic current (IKs), which has channel kinetics that are relatively slow compared to that of the other currents, makes the major contribution to the fluctuations in IBI. Reproduction of the experimental coefficient of variation of IBI by adding a Gaussian white noise-current into the deterministic model necessitates using an unrealistically high noise-current amplitude. Indeed, a major implication of the modelling results is that, given the wide range of time-scales over which the various species of channels open and close, only a cell-specific stochastic model that is formulated taking into consideration the widely different ranges in the frequency content of the channel-noise produced by the opening and closing of several different types of channels will be able to reproduce precisely the various effects due to membrane noise seen in a particular electrophysiological preparation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".