SynthesisThe Journal of general physiology2025
Variability in reported midpoints of (in)activation of cardiac INa.
Synthesis in The Journal of general physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrically active cells like cardiomyocytes show variability in their size, shape, and electrical activity. But should we expect variability in the properties of their ionic currents? In this meta-analysis, we gather and visualize measurements of two important electrophysiological parameters: the midpoints of activation and inactivation of the cardiac fast sodium current, INa. We find a considerable variation in reported mean values between experiments, with a smaller cell-to-cell variation within experiments. We show how the between-experiment variability can be decomposed into a correlated component, affecting both midpoints almost equally, and an uncorrelated component, affecting the midpoints independently, and we find that the correlated component is much larger than the uncorrelated one. We then review biological and methodological issues that might explain the observed variability and attempt to classify each as a within-experiment or a correlated or uncorrelated between-experiment effect. Although the existence of some variability in measurements of ionic currents is well-known, we believe that this is the first work to systematically review it and that the scale of the observed variability is much larger than commonly appreciated, which has implications for modelling and machine-learning as well as experimental design, interpretation, and reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.