MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158417622 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2002.804597

Computational techniques for solving the bidomain equations in three dimensions

2002· article· en· W2158417622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsFinite element methodBidomain modelParabolic partial differential equationComputationIterative methodApplied mathematicsComputer scienceGridMathematicsAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisPartial differential equationPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bidomain equations are the most complete description of cardiac electrical activity. Their numerical solution is, however, computationally demanding, especially in three dimensions, because of the fine temporal and spatial sampling required. This paper methodically examines computational performance when solving the bidomain equations. Several techniques to speed up this computation are examined in this paper. The first step was to recast the equations into a parabolic part and an elliptic part. The parabolic part was solved by either the finite-element method (FEM) or the interconnected cable model model (ICCM). The elliptic equation was solved by FEM on a coarser grid than the parabolic problem and at a reduced frequency. The performance of iterative and direct linear equation system solvers was analyzed as well as the scalability and parallelizability of each method. Results indicate that the ICCM was twice as fast as the FEM for solving the parabolic problem, but when the total problem was considered, this resulted in only a 20% decrease in computation time. The elliptic problem could be solved on a coarser grid at one-quarter of the frequency at which the parabolic problem was solved and still maintain reasonable accuracy. Direct methods were faster than iterative methods by at least 50% when a good estimate of the extracellular potential was required. Parallelization over four processors was efficient only when the model comprised at least 500,000 nodes. Thus, it was possible to speed up solution of the bidomain equations by an order of magnitude with a slight decrease in accuracy.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.221 · 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