MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131713087 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2147785

Impact of Physiological Ventricular Deformation on the Morphology of the T-Wave: A Hybrid, Static-Dynamic Approach

2011· article· en· W2131713087 on OpenAlexaff
D. U. J. Keller, Oussama Jarrousse, T. K. Fritz, Sebastian Ley, Olaf Dössel, Gunnar Seemann

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepolarizationAmplitudeElectrophysiologyDeformation (meteorology)Biomedical engineeringQT intervalDisplacement (psychology)PhysicsMechanicsMaterials scienceEngineeringCardiologyOpticsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventricular wall deformation is widely assumed to have an impact on the morphology of the T-wave that can be measured on the body surface. This study aims at quantifying these effects based on an in silico approach. To this end, we used a hybrid, static-dynamic approach: action potential propagation and repolarization were simulated on an electrophysiologically detailed but static 3-D heart model while the forward calculation accounted for ventricular deformation and the associated movement of the electrical sources (thus, it was dynamic). The displacement vectors that describe the ventricular motion were extracted from cinematographic and tagged MRI data using an elastic registration procedure. To probe to what extent the T-wave changes depend on the synchrony/asynchrony of mechanical relaxation and electrical repolarization, we created three electrophysiological configurations, each with a unique QT time: a setup with physiological QT time, a setup with pathologically short QT time (SQT), and pathologically long QT time (LQT), respectively. For all three electrophysiological configurations, a reduction of the T-wave amplitude was observed when the dynamic model was used for the forward calculations. The largest amplitude changes and the lowest correlation coefficients between the static and dynamic model were observed for the SQT setup, followed by the physiological QT and LQT setups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207