Optimizing Our Patients’ Entropy Production as Therapy? Hypotheses Originating from the Physics of Physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how nature drives entropy production offers novel insights regarding patient care. Whilst energy is always preserved and energy gradients irreversibly dissipate (thus producing entropy), increasing evidence suggests that they do so in the most optimal means possible. For living complex non-equilibrium systems to create a healthy internal emergent order, they must continuously produce entropy over time. The Maximum Entropy Production Principle (MEPP) highlights nature's drive for non-equilibrium systems to augment their entropy production if possible. This physical drive is hypothesized to be responsible for the spontaneous formation of fractal structures in space (e.g., multi-scale self-similar tree-like vascular structures that optimize delivery to and clearance from an organ system) and time (e.g., complex heart and respiratory rate variability); both are ubiquitous and essential for physiology and health. Second, human entropy production, measured by heat production divided by temperature, is hypothesized to relate to both metabolism and consciousness, dissipating oxidative energy gradients and reducing information into meaning and memory, respectively. Third, both MEPP and natural selection are hypothesized to drive enhanced functioning and adaptability, selecting states with robust basilar entropy production, as well as the capacity to enhance entropy production in response to exercise, heat stress, and illness. Finally, a targeted focus on optimizing our patients' entropy production has the potential to improve health and clinical outcomes. With the implications of developing a novel understanding of health, illness, and treatment strategies, further exploration of this uncharted ground will offer value.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".