MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009940503 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00170

Neurohumoral Control of Sinoatrial Node Activity and Heart Rate: Insight From Experimental Models and Findings From Humans

2020· review· en· W3009940503 on OpenAlexafffund
Eilidh MacDonald, Robert A. Rose, T. Alexander Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsSinoatrial nodeHeart rateCardiologyInternal medicineNeuroscienceMedicineBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sinoatrial node is perhaps one of the most important tissues in the entire body: it is the natural pacemaker of the heart, making it responsible for initiating each-and-every normal heartbeat. As such, its activity is heavily controlled, allowing heart rate to rapidly adapt to changes in physiological demand. Control of sinoatrial node activity, however, is complex, occurring through the autonomic nervous system and various circulating and locally released factors. In this review we discuss the coupled-clock pacemaker system and how its manipulation by neurohumoral signaling alters heart rate, considering the multitude of canonical and non-canonical agents that are known to modulate sinoatrial node activity. For each, we discuss the principal receptors involved and known intracellular signaling and protein targets, highlighting gaps in our knowledge and understanding from experimental models and human studies that represent areas for future research.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207