MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2294410895 · doi:10.1109/embc.2015.7319390

Computationally efficient method for localizing the spiral rotor source using synthetic intracardiac electrograms during atrial fibrillation

2015· article· en· W2294410895 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hassan Shariat, Saeed Gazor, Damian Redfearn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavefrontSpiral (railway)Atrial fibrillationAblationIntracardiac injectionRotor (electric)Computer scienceCatheter ablationArtifact (error)MedicineCardiologyPhysicsComputer visionMathematicsOpticsEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, is an extremely costly public health problem. Catheter-based ablation is a common minimally invasive procedure to treat AF. Contemporary mapping methods are highly dependent on the accuracy of anatomic localization of rotor sources within the atria. In this paper, using simulated atrial intracardiac electrograms (IEGMs) during AF, we propose a computationally efficient method for localizing the tip of the electrical rotor with an Archimedean/arithmetic spiral wavefront. The proposed method deploys the locations of electrodes of a catheter and their IEGMs activation times to estimate the unknown parameters of the spiral wavefront including its tip location. The proposed method is able to localize the spiral as soon as the wave hits three electrodes of the catheter. Our simulation results show that the method can efficiently localize the spiral wavefront that rotates either clockwise or counterclockwise.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→