Neurocardiac science
Autonomic physiology, stress response, neurohormonal signaling, cardiac recovery, brain-heart interaction, and related translational literature.
Research & Evidence Library
Evidence first. Claims second.
This library distinguishes authoritative evidence, peer-reviewed literature, RTH synthesis, patient-authored observations, research manuscripts, study-development materials, and open validation questions. The Neurocardiac Model™ is presented as evidence-informed and hypothesis-generating—not as a diagnostic or treatment standard.
Research architecture
One public index. Multiple evidence layers.
RestartingTheHeart.com serves as the RTH ecosystem gateway. NeurocardiacMethod.com is the designated specialist scientific property; until that dedicated professional site is fully deployed, this page serves as the public index for the research pipeline and appropriate collaboration pathways.
Wearables & measurement
Validation research for HRV, heart rate, readiness, sleep, consumer sensors, device data, and longitudinal signal interpretation.
AI & evidence systems
Explainability, provenance, AI governance, interoperability, clinical decision-support boundaries, and responsible health-data use for SuperstarIQ.
Research maturity pathway
A research question is not the same thing as validated evidence.
This pathway shows how RTH separates observations, a conceptual framework, manuscripts, prospective study development, and the future work required for independent validation.
- Observation & source recordsChronology, lived experience, clinical records, device data, and literature can generate questions. They do not automatically establish causation.
- Framework & synthesisThe Neurocardiac Model™ organizes a proposed pathway and makes assumptions and testable questions easier to inspect.
- Manuscripts & critiqueWhite papers, case analyses, and conference materials document reasoning and invite review. Prepared or submitted work is not the same as peer-reviewed publication.
- Prospective studyVariables, protocols, measurement strategy, ethics review, participant methods, and analysis plans translate the question into a study design.
- Independent validationReplication, external investigators, measurement validity, appropriate comparison groups, and transparent results are necessary before stronger general claims are justified.
Document statusWhere a document is in its lifecycle
Evidence strengthWhat the underlying evidence can reasonably support
Access levelWhat can be public, request-only, or controlled
Research publication pipeline
Scientific manuscripts and conference materials.
Status labels describe the current document state. They do not imply peer review, journal acceptance, conference acceptance, clinical validation, regulatory review, or institutional endorsement.
Neurocardiac Model™ Scientific White Paper — Version 5.0
The completed Version 5.0 scientific synthesis of the evidence informing the Neurocardiac Model™, its five-stage observational framework, limitations, and testable research questions. An OSF preprint note is incorporated in the manuscript package. This public status does not claim that a preprint DOI has been issued, that a journal has received the manuscript, or that peer review or clinical validation has occurred.
Access: Public summary here; full manuscript retained for controlled professional/research distribution pending the dedicated Neurocardiac Method professional hub.Extreme Neurocardiac Coupling in a High-Functioning Survivor of Sudden Cardiac Arrest: A Seven-Year Longitudinal Case Analysis — Version 5.0
A completed patient-authored longitudinal case-analysis manuscript prepared to journal-submission standard. It examines reproducible associations between cognitive-emotional activation and cardiac observations across an extended clinical record. Listing it as submission-ready does not claim co-author approval, journal submission, peer review, acceptance, publication, or causation.
Access: Controlled professional/research review; formal submission milestones will be posted only after independent verification.Neurocardiac Clinical Summary Visual
A completed structured visual summary designed to organize chronology, measurements, observations, and questions for clinical review without substituting for the underlying medical record or independent physician interpretation.
Access: Available for qualified clinician/research review; patient-specific source records remain controlled.Neurocardiac Conference Abstract Package — Version 4
Conference-specific abstract materials are prepared for electrophysiology, cardiovascular, and resuscitation audiences, but the prior publication-suite inventory identifies physician co-author names as a remaining prerequisite before submission. Submission, acceptance, presentation, DOI, and publication status must be verified separately before any such claim is displayed.
Access: Controlled until authorship and conference-specific submission requirements are complete.
Preprint / submission transparency
A document may be complete or submission-ready without having been formally submitted, reviewed, accepted, or published. An OSF DOI, journal name, submission date, review status, co-author confirmation, conference acceptance, or permanent citation will be displayed only after that specific milestone is independently verified. Unverified DOI, submission, authorship, or acceptance language is not treated as publication evidence.
Study development
Prospective research infrastructure.
These documents translate the observational framework into testable research questions while preserving the distinction between planning, institutional review, data collection, and completed research.
Research Variable Matrix
Defines candidate variables, domains, measures, outcomes, covariates, and data-quality considerations for prospective investigation.
Access: Public summary / detailed materials controlledProspective Study Blueprint
Outlines a future prospective study architecture, including research questions, participant flow, measurement strategy, analytic considerations, and validation objectives.
Access: Available for qualified research collaborationIRB Protocol
Research ethics and study-protocol materials prepared to support future institutional review. Listing this document does not mean an IRB has approved, sponsored, or opened a study.
Access: Full IRB materials available on request to qualified collaboratorsResearch Collaboration Proposal
A structured proposal for universities, health systems, investigators, and technical partners interested in methodological review, prospective validation, interoperability, or outcomes research.
Access: Available on requestDevice Telemetry & Source Documentation Index
An index of source documentation that may support qualified research or clinical review. Patient-specific telemetry, source records, and protected health information are not published as an open web download.
Access: Controlled review onlyClinician communication tools
Seven structured professional-facing resources.
These materials are designed to support clinical communication and pattern review. They are not validated screening instruments, diagnostic devices, clinical decision-support systems, or substitutes for the source medical record.
Physician One-Pager
Concise clinical communication summary designed to help a physician rapidly understand the framework, chronology, evidence boundaries, and questions for review.
Clinician Intake Packet
Structured intake material for organizing relevant history, symptom chronology, observations, and questions before a clinical or research conversation.
Symptom Summary Sheet
A compact patient-reported summary format intended to improve chronology and pattern communication without converting self-report into diagnosis.
Cardiorespiratory Summary Sheet
A structured communication aid for documenting patient-observed relationships among rhythm changes, breathing changes, symptoms, timing, and recovery.
Physician Outreach Packet
A professional introduction packet for requesting review, collaboration, feedback, or discussion of the research framework and supporting materials.
Why This Matters Clinically
A clinician-facing briefing that explains the practical research question, current evidence boundaries, and why structured longitudinal pattern communication may merit investigation.
Clinician Toolkit Bundle
A consolidated bundle of the clinician communication materials for qualified professional review and research collaboration.
Controlled distribution
Full IRB materials, patient-specific device telemetry, source medical records, protected health information, unpublished trade-secret methods, and other restricted evidence are not offered as unrestricted public downloads. Qualified researchers and clinicians may request appropriate review through the collaboration pathway below.
Evidence library entries
Research notes and evidence summaries.
Published RTH evidence entries identify source type, publication date, what the evidence supports, what it does not support, why it matters to RTH, and material limitations.
Source-reviewed evidence entries are being prepared.
The research pipeline above is public, while individual evidence-summary posts remain subject to source review and editorial preparation before publication.
Research integrity
Status is not evidence strength.
Document status
Draft, submission-ready, submitted, under review, accepted, preprint, and peer-reviewed are different states and must not be conflated.
Evidence strength
A case report or framework can generate hypotheses and organize observations but cannot establish population-level causation or clinical efficacy by itself.
Source protection
Public transparency does not require publication of protected medical records, raw telemetry, private identifiers, or trade-secret algorithms.
Research collaboration
Researchers, clinicians, universities, health systems, and technical partners may use this form to discuss methodological review, prospective validation, measurement, interoperability, or data-governance collaboration. Do not submit protected health information through this general inquiry form.