Performance horses as a model for exercise-associated cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews the myocardial substrate of horses relative to that of humans and discusses the utility of performance horses as a model of exercise-associated cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in athletes. The coronary circulation is similar between the species while coronary artery anomalies and myocardial bridging appear to only be associated with athletic mortality in human athletes and not in performance horses. There are subtle differences in the histology of the sinus and atrioventricular nodes, of unknown clinical significance, while the His bundle is more highly innervated in horses. The equine Purkinje network is much more extensive, contributing to a difference in the mean electrical axis between horses and humans. Differences in ion channel expression have been reported, although they are poorly characterized, and are of unknown clinical significance. However, horses may be a particularly good model to investigate the function of Kv1.5 due to its spontaneous ventricular expression, which is lacking in human ventricles. Similarities in cardiac structure, coronary vasculature, and ability to exercise at high levels makes performance horses a good model to investigate exercise-associated cardiac arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in athletes. However, differences in myocardial substrate should be taken into consideration when designing studies and interpreting results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".