Correspondence Between Simple 3-D MRI-Based Computer Models and In-Vivo EP Measurements in Swine With Chronic Infarctions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to compare several in-vivo electrophysiological (EP) characteristics measured in a swine model of chronic infarct, with those predicted by simple 3-D MRI-based computer models built from ex-vivo scans (voxel size <1 mm(3)). Specifically, we recorded electroanatomical voltage maps (EAVM) in six animals, and ECG waves during induction of arrhythmia in two of these cases. The infarct heterogeneities (dense scar and border zone) as well as fiber directions were estimated using diffusion weighted DW-MRI. We found a good correspondence (r = 0.9) between scar areas delineated on the EAVM and MRI maps. For theoretical predictions, we used a simple two-variable macroscopic model and computed the propagation of action potential after application of a train of stimuli, with location and timing replicating the stimulation protocol used in the in-vivo EP study. Simulation results are exemplified for two hearts: one with noninducible ventricular tachycardia (VT), and another with a macroreentrant VT (for the latter, the average predicted VT cycle length was 273 ms, compared to a recorded VT of 250 ms).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".