↓ Skip to main content

Control of Whole Heart Geometry by Intramyocardial Mechano-Feedback: A Model Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Control of Whole Heart Geometry by Intramyocardial Mechano-Feedback: A Model Study
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002369
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theo Arts, Joost Lumens, Wilco Kroon, Tammo Delhaas

Abstract

Geometry of the heart adapts to mechanical load, imposed by pressures and volumes of the cavities. We regarded preservation of cardiac geometry as a homeostatic control system. The control loop was simulated by a chain of models, starting with geometry of the cardiac walls, sequentially simulating circulation hemodynamics, myofiber stress and strain in the walls, transfer of mechano-sensed signals to structural changes of the myocardium, and finalized by calculation of resulting changes in cardiac wall geometry. Instead of modeling detailed mechano-transductive pathways and their interconnections, we used principles of control theory to find optimal transfer functions, representing the overall biological responses to mechanical signals. As biological responses we regarded tissue mass, extent of contractile myocyte structure and extent of the extra-cellular matrix. Mechano-structural stimulus-response characteristics were considered to be the same for atrial and ventricular tissue. Simulation of adaptation to self-generated hemodynamic load rendered physiologic geometry of all cardiac cavities automatically. Adaptation of geometry to chronic hypertension and volume load appeared also physiologic. Different combinations of mechano-sensors satisfied the condition that control of geometry is stable. Thus, we expect that for various species, evolution may have selected different solutions for mechano-adaptation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 84 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 26%
Researcher 23 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 29 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Computer Science 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2012.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#8,206
of 8,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,445
of 254,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#94
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.