Are Interactions between Epicardial Adipose Tissue, Cardiac Fibroblasts and Cardiac Myocytes Instrumental in Atrial Fibrosis and Atrial Fibrillation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation is very common among the elderly and/or obese. While myocardial fibrosis is associated with atrial fibrillation, the exact mechanisms within atrial myocytes and surrounding non-myocytes are not fully understood. This review considers the potential roles of myocardial fibroblasts and myofibroblasts in fibrosis and modulating myocyte electrophysiology through electrotonic interactions. Coupling with (myo)fibroblasts in vitro and in silico prolonged myocyte action potential duration and caused resting depolarization; an optogenetic study has verified in vivo that fibroblasts depolarized when coupled myocytes produced action potentials. This review also introduces another non-myocyte which may modulate both myocardial (myo)fibroblasts and myocytes: epicardial adipose tissue. Epicardial adipocytes are in intimate contact with myocytes and (myo)fibroblasts and may infiltrate the myocardium. Adipocytes secrete numerous adipokines which modulate (myo)fibroblast and myocyte physiology. These adipokines are protective in healthy hearts, preventing inflammation and fibrosis. However, adipokines secreted from adipocytes may switch to pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic, associated with reactive oxygen species generation. Pro-fibrotic adipokines stimulate myofibroblast differentiation, causing pronounced fibrosis in the epicardial adipose tissue and the myocardium. Adipose tissue also influences myocyte electrophysiology, via the adipokines and/or through electrotonic interactions. Deeper understanding of the interactions between myocytes and non-myocytes is important to understand and manage atrial fibrillation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".