Relationship between capillaries, mitochondria and maximum power of the heart: a meta-study from shrew to elephant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This meta-study uses phylogenetic scaling models across more than 30 species, spanning five orders of magnitude in body mass, to show that cardiac capillary numerical density and mitochondrial volume density decrease with body mass raised to the –0.07 ± 0.03 and –0.04 ± 0.01 exponents, respectively. Thus, while an average 10 g mammal has a cardiac capillary density of approximately 4150 mm−2and a mitochondrial density of 33%, a 1 t mammal has considerably lower corresponding values of 1850 mm−2and 21%. These similar scaling trajectories suggest quantitative matching for the primary oxygen supply and oxygen consuming structures of the heart, supporting economic design at the cellular level of the oxygen cascade in this aerobic organ. These scaling trajectories are nonetheless somewhat shallower than the exponent of –0.11 calculated for the maximum external mechanical power of the cardiac tissue, under conditions of heavy exercise, when oxygen flow between capillaries and mitochondria is probably fully exploited. This mismatch, if substantiated, implies a declining external mechanical efficiency of the heart with increasing body mass, whereby larger individuals put more energy in but get less energy out, a scenario with implications for cardiovascular design, aerobic capacity and limits of body size.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".