In Vivo Cardiac Electrophysiology in Mice: Determination of Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmic Substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac arrhythmias are a common cardiac condition that might lead to fatal outcomes. A better understanding of the molecular and cellular basis of arrhythmia mechanisms is necessary for the development of better treatment modalities. To aid these efforts, various mouse models have been developed for studying cardiac arrhythmias. Both genetic and surgical mouse models are commonly used to assess the incidence and mechanisms of arrhythmias. Since spontaneous arrhythmias are uncommon in healthy young mice, intracardiac programmed electrical stimulation (PES) can be performed to assess the susceptibility to pacing-induced arrhythmias and uncover the possible presence of a proarrhythmogenic substrate. This procedure is performed by positioning an octopolar catheter inside the right atrium and ventricle of the heart through the right jugular vein. PES can provide insights into atrial and ventricular electrical activity and reveal whether atrial and/or ventricular arrhythmias are present or can be induced. Here, we explain detailed procedures used to perform this technique, possible troubleshooting scenarios, and methods to interpret the results obtained. © 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol: Programmed electrical stimulation in mice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".