Physiological Assessment of Ventricular Myocardial Voltage Using Omnipolar Electrograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Characterization of myocardial health by bipolar electrograms are critical for ventricular tachycardia therapy. Dependence of bipolar electrograms on electrode orientation may reduce reliability of voltage assessment along the plane of arrhythmic myocardial substrate. Hence, we sought to evaluate voltage assessment from orientation-independent omnipolar electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: We mapped the ventricular epicardium of 5 isolated hearts from each species-healthy rabbits, healthy pigs, and diseased humans-under paced conditions. We derived bipolar electrograms and voltage peak-to-peak (Vpps) along 2 bipolar electrode orientations (horizontal and vertical). We derived omnipolar electrograms and Vpps using omnipolar electrogram methodology. Voltage maps were created for both bipoles and omnipole. Electrode orientation affects the bipolar voltage map with an average absolute difference between horizontal and vertical of 0.25±0.18 mV in humans. Vpps provide larger absolute values than horizontal and vertical bipolar Vpps by 1.6 and 1.4 mV, respectively, in humans. Bipolar electrograms with the largest Vpps from either along horizontal or vertical orientation are highly correlated with omnipolar electrograms and with Vpps values (0.97±0.08 and 0.94±0.08, respectively). Vpps values are more consistent than bipoles, in both beat-by-beat (CoV, 0.28±0.19 versus 0.08±0.13 in human hearts) and rhythm changes (0.55±0.21 versus 0.40±0.20 in porcine hearts). CONCLUSIONS: Omnipoles provide physiologically relevant and consistent voltages that are along the maximal bipolar direction on the plane of the myocardium.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".