MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801721515 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-25334-7

Conduction in the Heart Wall: Helicoidal Fibers Minimize Diffusion Bias

2018· article· en· W2801721515 on OpenAlexaff
Tristan Aumentado‐Armstrong, Amir Kadivar, Peter Savadjiev, Steven W. Zucker, Kaleem Siddiqi

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocardiumHelicoidContext (archaeology)Purkinje fibersGeometryThermal conductionPhysicsCardiac cycleMechanicsMaterials scienceAnatomyElectrophysiologyMathematicsNeuroscienceCardiologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mammalian heart must function as an efficient pump while simultaneously conducting electrical signals to drive the contraction process. In the ventricles, electrical activation begins at the insertion points of the Purkinje network in the endocardium. How does the diffusion component of the subsequent excitation wave propagate from the endocardium in a healthy heart wall without creating directional biases? We show that this is a consequence of the particular geometric organization of myocytes in the heart wall. Using a generalized helicoid to model fiber orientation, we treat the myocardium as a curved space via Riemannian geometry, and then use stochastic calculus to model local signal diffusion. Our analysis shows that the helicoidal arrangement of myocytes minimizes the directional biases that could lead to aberrant propagation, thereby explaining how electrophysiological principles are consistent with local measurements of cardiac fiber geometry. We discuss our results in the context of the need to balance electrical and mechanical requirements for heart function.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207