Examining the Impact of Prior Models in Transmural Electrophysiological Imaging: A Hierarchical Multiple-Model Bayesian Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noninvasive cardiac electrophysiological (EP) imaging aims to mathematically reconstruct the spatiotemporal dynamics of cardiac sources from body-surface electrocardiographic (ECG) data. This ill-posed problem is often regularized by a fixed constraining model. However, a fixed-model approach enforces the source distribution to follow a pre-assumed structure that does not always match the varying spatiotemporal distribution of actual sources. To understand the model-data relation and examine the impact of prior models, we present a multiple-model approach for volumetric cardiac EP imaging where multiple prior models are included and automatically picked by the available ECG data. Multiple models are incorporated as an Lp-norm prior for sources, where p is an unknown hyperparameter with a prior uniform distribution. To examine how different combinations of models may be favored by different measurement data, the posterior distribution of cardiac sources and hyperparameter p is calculated using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique. The importance of multiple-model prior was assessed in two sets of synthetic and real-data experiments, compared to fixed-model priors (using Laplace and Gaussian priors). The results showed that the posterior combination of models (the posterior distribution of p) as determined by the ECG data differed substantially when reconstructing sources with different sizes and structures. While the use of fixed models is best suited in situations where the prior assumption fits the actual source structures, the use of an automatically adaptive set of models may have the ability to better address model-data mismatch and to provide consistent performance in reconstructing sources with different properties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".