Effects of spatially dense adrenergic stimulation to rotor behaviour in simulated atrial sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sympathetic hyperactivity via spatially dense adrenergic stimulation may create pro-arrhythmic substrates even without structural remodelling. However, the effect of sympathetic hyperactivity on arrhythmic activity, such as rotors, is unknown. Using simulations, we examined the effects of gradually increasing the spatial density of adrenergic stimulation (AS) in atrial sheets on rotors. We compared their characteristics against rotors hosted in atrial sheets with increasing spatial density of minimally conductive (MC) elements to simulate structural remodelling due to injury or disease. We generated rotors using an S1-S2 stimulation protocol. Then, we created phase maps to identify phase singularities and map their trajectory over time. We measured each rotor's duration (s), angular speed (rad/s), and spatiotemporal organization. We demonstrated that atrial sheets with increased AS spatial densities could maintain rotors longer than with MC elements (2.6 ± 0.1 s vs. 1.5 ± 0.2 s, p<0.001). Moreover, rotors have higher angular speed (70 ± 7 rads/s vs. 60 ± 15 rads/s, p<0.05) and better spatiotemporal organization (0.56 ± 0.05 vs. 0.58 ± 0.18, p<0.05) in atrial sheets with less than 25% AS elements compared to MC elements. Our findings may help elucidate electrophysiological potential alterations in atrial substrates due to sympathetic hyperactivity, particularly among individuals with autonomic derangements caused by chronic distress.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".