MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49296270 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-997-4:199

Contraction Study of a Single Cardiac Muscle Cell in a Microfluidic Chip

2006· article· en· W49296270 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiujun Li, Paul C. H. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntracellularContraction (grammar)Calcium in biologyMicrofluidicsMicrofluidic chipCellBiophysicsCalciumCardiac muscleMyocyteFluorescenceChemistryBiomedical engineeringMaterials scienceNanotechnologyAnatomyCell biologyBiologyBiochemistryMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter introduces a microfluidic method to study the contraction of a single cardiac muscle cell (cardiomyocyte). This method integrates single-cell selection, cell retention, dye loading, chemical stimulation, and fluorescence measurement for intracellular calcium on one microfluidic chip. Before single-cell experiments, the bonded chip was modified in order to make the channel deep enough to accommodate a large, single cardiomyocyte. After the modification, a single heart muscle cell could be selected and retained at a cell retention structure. Fluo-4 AM was loaded in the cell for the measurement of intracellular calcium ion concentration in the cell. Subsequently, caffeine was introduced into the chamber to induce the contraction of the cardiomyocyte. During contraction, fluorescence measurement was used to monitor the intracellular calcium level,and an optical imaging system was used to monitor the shape to confirm the contraction. The resting [Ca2+]i of cardiomyocyte was determined and was consistent with the value of approx 100 nM in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207