Cardiac anisotropy in boundary-element models for the electrocardiogram
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The boundary-element method (BEM) is widely used for electrocardiogram (ECG) simulation. Its major disadvantage is its perceived inability to deal with the anisotropic electric conductivity of the myocardial interstitium, which led researchers to represent only intracellular anisotropy or neglect anisotropy altogether. We computed ECGs with a BEM model based on dipole sources that accounted for a "compound" anisotropy ratio. The ECGs were compared with those computed by a finite-difference model, in which intracellular and interstitial anisotropy could be represented without compromise. For a given set of conductivities, we always found a compound anisotropy value that led to acceptable differences between BEM and finite-difference results. In contrast, a fully isotropic model produced unacceptably large differences. A model that accounted only for intracellular anisotropy showed intermediate performance. We conclude that using a compound anisotropy ratio allows BEM-based ECG models to more accurately represent both anisotropies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".