MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138740890 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2011.2107513

Personalization of a Cardiac Electrophysiology Model Using Optical Mapping and MRI for Prediction of Changes With Pacing

2011· article· en· W2138740890 on OpenAlexaff
Jatin Relan, Mihaela Pop, Hervé Delingette, Graham A. Wright, Nicholas Ayache, Maxime Sermesant

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced MRI Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationCardiac electrophysiologyRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceElectrophysiologyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer models of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) can be a very efficient tool to better understand the mechanisms of arrhythmias. Quantitative adjustment of such models to experimental data (personalization) is needed in order to test their realism and predictive power, but it remains challenging at the organ scale. In this paper, we propose a framework for the personalization of a 3-D cardiac EP model, the Mitchell-Schaeffer (MS) model, and evaluate its volumetric predictive power under various pacing scenarios. The personalization was performed on ex vivo large porcine healthy hearts using diffusion tensor MRI (DT-MRI) and optical mapping data. The MS model was simulated on a 3-D mesh incorporating local fiber orientations, built from DT-MRI. The 3-D model parameters were optimized using features such as 2-D epicardial depolarization and repolarization maps, extracted from the optical mapping. We also evaluated the sensitivity of our personalization framework to different pacing locations and showed results on its robustness. Further, we evaluated volumetric model predictions for various epi- and endocardial pacing scenarios. We demonstrated promising results with a mean personalization error around 5 ms and a mean prediction error around 10 ms (5% of the total depolarization time). Finally, we discussed the potential translation of such work to clinical data and pathological hearts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207