In silico study of multicellular automaticity of heterogeneous cardiac cell monolayers: Effects of automaticity strength and structural linear anisotropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biological pacemaker approach is an alternative to cardiac electronic pacemakers. Its main objective is to create pacemaking activity from added or modified distribution of spontaneous cells in the myocardium. This paper aims to assess how automaticity strength of pacemaker cells (i.e. their ability to maintain robust spontaneous activity with fast rate and to drive neighboring quiescent cells) and structural linear anisotropy, combined with density and spatial distribution of pacemaker cells, may affect the macroscopic behavior of the biological pacemaker. A stochastic algorithm was used to randomly distribute pacemaker cells, with various densities and spatial distributions, in a semi-continuous mathematical model. Simulations of the model showed that stronger automaticity allows onset of spontaneous activity for lower densities and more homogeneous spatial distributions, displayed more central foci, less variability in cycle lengths and synchronization of electrical activation for similar spatial patterns, but more variability in those same variables for dissimilar spatial patterns. Compared to their isotropic counterparts, in silico anisotropic monolayers had less central foci and displayed more variability in cycle lengths and synchronization of electrical activation for both similar and dissimilar spatial patterns. The present study established a link between microscopic structure and macroscopic behavior of the biological pacemaker, and may provide crucial information for optimized biological pacemaker therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".