A Comparison of Monodomain and Bidomain Reaction-Diffusion Models for Action Potential Propagation in the Human Heart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bidomain reaction-diffusion model of the human heart was developed, and potentials resulting from normal depolarization and repolarization were compared with results from a compatible monodomain model. Comparisons were made for an empty isolated heart and for a heart with fluid-filled ventricles. Both sinus rhythm and ectopic activation were simulated. The bidomain model took 2 days on 32 processors to simulate a complete cardiac cycle. Differences between monodomain and bidomain results were extremely small, even for the extracellular potentials, which in case of the monodomain model were computed with a high-resolution forward model. Propagation of activation was 2% faster in the bidomain model than in the monodomain model. Electrograms computed with monodomain and bidomain models were visually indistinguishable. We conclude that, in the absence of applied currents, propagating action potentials on the scale of a human heart can be studied with a monodomain model.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".