Echocardiography and electrocardiography reveal differences in cardiac hemodynamics, electrical characteristics, and thermal sensitivity between northern pike, rainbow trout, and white sturgeon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Doppler and B‐mode ultrasonography and electrocardiography (ECG) were used to determine cardiac hemodynamics and electrical characteristics in 12°C‐acclimated and metomidate‐anesthetized northern pike, rainbow trout and white sturgeon (7–9 per species) at 12°C and 20°C, and at a comparable heart rate ( f H , ~60 beats/min). Despite similar relative ventricle masses and cardiac output (Q), interspecific differences were observed at 12°C in f H , ventricular filling and ejection, stroke volume, the duration ECG intervals, and cardiac valve cross‐sectional areas. Vis‐a‐fronte filling of the atrium due to ventricular contraction was observed in all species. However, biphasic ventricular filling (i.e., due to central venous pressure and then atrial contraction) was only observed in rainbow trout and white sturgeon. Changes in atrial and ventricular performance varied between the species as temperature increased from 12°C to 20°C. Rainbow trout had the highest thermal sensitivity for f H (Q 10 = 3.73), which doubled Q, and the largest increase in transvalvular blood velocity during ventricular filling. Conversely, northern pike had the lowest Q 10 for f H (1.58) and did not increase Q. At ~60 beats/min, the rainbow trout heart had the shortest period of electrical activity, which also resulted in the longest recovery period (TP interval) between successive beats. The QT interval at ~60 beats/min was also longer in the white sturgeon versus the other species. These results suggest that interspecific differences in fish cardiac hemodynamics may be related to cardiac morphology, the duration of electrical impulses through the heart, cardiac thermal sensitivity, and valve dimensions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".