Modeling cardiac complexity: Advancements in myocardial models and analytical techniques for physiological investigation and therapeutic development <i>in vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiomyopathies, heart failure, and arrhythmias or conduction blockages impact millions of patients worldwide and are associated with marked increases in sudden cardiac death, decline in the quality of life, and the induction of secondary pathologies. These pathologies stem from dysfunction in the contractile or conductive properties of the cardiomyocyte, which as a result is a focus of fundamental investigation, drug discovery and therapeutic development, and tissue engineering. All of these foci require in vitro myocardial models and experimental techniques to probe the physiological functions of the cardiomyocyte. In this review, we provide a detailed exploration of different cell models, disease modeling strategies, and tissue constructs used from basic to translational research. Furthermore, we highlight recent advancements in imaging, electrophysiology, metabolic measurements, and mechanical and contractile characterization modalities that are advancing our understanding of cardiomyocyte physiology. With this review, we aim to both provide a biological framework for engineers contributing to the field and demonstrate the technical basis and limitations underlying physiological measurement modalities for biologists attempting to take advantage of these state-of-the-art techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".