Influence of heart motion on cardiac output estimation by means of electrical impedance tomography: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive imaging technique that can measure cardiac-related intra-thoracic impedance changes. EIT-based cardiac output estimation relies on the assumption that the amplitude of the impedance change in the ventricular region is representative of stroke volume (SV). However, other factors such as heart motion can significantly affect this ventricular impedance change. In the present case study, a magnetic resonance imaging-based dynamic bio-impedance model fitting the morphology of a single male subject was built. Simulations were performed to evaluate the contribution of heart motion and its influence on EIT-based SV estimation. Myocardial deformation was found to be the main contributor to the ventricular impedance change (56%). However, motion-induced impedance changes showed a strong correlation (r = 0.978) with left ventricular volume. We explained this by the quasi-incompressibility of blood and myocardium. As a result, EIT achieved excellent accuracy in estimating a wide range of simulated SV values (error distribution of 0.57 ± 2.19 ml (1.02 ± 2.62%) and correlation of r = 0.996 after a two-point calibration was applied to convert impedance values to millilitres). As the model was based on one single subject, the strong correlation found between motion-induced changes and ventricular volume remains to be verified in larger datasets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".