MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234370974 · doi:10.1139/y00-115

The mechanisms of the vulnerable window: the role of virtual electrodes and shock polarity

2001· article· en· W4234370974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yoshio Yamanouchi, Yuanna Cheng, Patrick Tchou, Igor R. Efimov

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsRefractory periodPolarity (international relations)DepolarizationShock (circulatory)DefibrillationCoupling (piping)WavefrontPolarity reversalPolarization (electrochemistry)ChemistryMaterials scienceBiophysicsPhysicsInternal medicineOpticsMedicineVoltageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vulnerability and defibrillation are mechanistically dependent upon shock strength, polarity, and timing. We have recently demonstrated that shock-induced virtual electrode polarization (VEP) may induce reentry. However, it remains unclear how the VEP mechanism may explain the vulnerable window and polarity dependence of vulnerability. We used a potentiometric dye and optical mapping to assess the anterior epicardial electrical activity of Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 7) during monophasic shocks (±100 V and ±200 V, duration of 8 ms) applied from a transvenous defibrillation lead at various coupling intervals. Arrhythmias were induced in a coupling interval and shock polarity dependent manner: (i) anodal and cathodal shocks induced arrhythmias in 33.2 ± 30.1% and 53.1 ± 39.3% cases (P < 0.01), respectively, and (ii) the vulnerable window was located near the T-wave. Optical maps revealed that VEP was also modulated by the coupling interval and shock polarity. Recovery of excitability produced by negative polarization, known as de-excitation, and the resulting reentry was more readily achieved during the relative refractory period than the absolute refractory period. Furthermore, anodal shocks produced wavefronts propagating in an inward direction with respect to the electrode, whereas cathodal shocks propagated in an outward direction. Wavefronts produced by anodal shocks were more likely to collide and annihilate each other than those caused by cathodal shocks. The probability of degeneration of the VEP-induced phase singularity into a sustained arrhythmia depends upon the gradient of VEP and the direction of the VEP-induced wavefront. The VEP gradient depends upon the coupling interval, while the direction depends upon shock polarity; these factors explain the vulnerable window and polarity-dependence of vulnerability, respectively.Key words: defibrillation, stimulation, arrhythmia, cardiac vulnerability, optical mapping.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207