Anatomy of the heart of the leatherback turtle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-crocodylian reptiles have hearts with a single ventricle, which is partially separated by a muscular ridge that provides some separation of blood flows. An exceptional situation exists in monitor lizards and pythons, where the ventricular left side generates a much higher systolic blood pressure than the right side, thus resembling mammals and birds. This functional division of the ventricle depends on a large muscular ridge and may relate to high metabolic demand. The large leatherback turtle (<1000 kg), with its extensive migrations and elevated body temperatures, may have similar adaptations. We report on the anatomy of the hearts of two leatherback turtles. One stranded in Ballum, Denmark in 2020, and was examined in detail, supplemented by observations and photos of an additional stranding specimen from Canada. The external morphology of the leatherback heart resembles that of other turtles, but it is large. We made morphometric measurements of the Ballum heart and created an interactive 3D model using high-resolution MRI. The volume of the ventricle was 950 ml, from a turtle of 300 kg, which is proportionally almost twice as large as in other reptiles. The Ballum heart was compared to MRI scans of the hearts of a tortoise, a python, and a monitor lizard. Internally, the leatherback heart is typical of non-crocodylian reptiles and did not contain the well-developed septation found in pythons and monitor lizards. We conclude that if leatherback turtles have exceptional circulation needs, they are sustained with a relatively large but otherwise typical non-crocodylian reptile heart.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".