Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In the 1950s, Arthur C. Guyton removed the heart from its pedestal in cardiovascular physiology by arguing that cardiac output is primarily regulated by the peripheral vasculature. This is counterintuitive, as modulating heart rate would appear to be the most obvious means of regulating cardiac output. In this Review, we visit recent and classic advances in comparative physiology in light of this concept. Although most vertebrates increase heart rate when oxygen demands rise (e.g. during activity or warming), experimental evidence suggests that this tachycardia is neither necessary nor sufficient to drive a change in cardiac output (i.e. systemic blood flow, Q̇sys) under most circumstances. Instead, Q̇sys is determined by the interplay between vascular conductance (resistance) and capacitance (which is mainly determined by the venous circulation), with a limited and variable contribution from heart function (myocardial inotropy). This pattern prevails across vertebrates; however, we also highlight the unique adaptations that have evolved in certain vertebrate groups to regulate venous return during diving bradycardia (i.e. inferior caval sphincters in diving mammals and atrial smooth muscle in turtles). Going forward, future investigation of cardiovascular responses to altered metabolic rate should pay equal consideration to the factors influencing venous return and cardiac filling as to the factors dictating cardiac function and heart rate.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".