A finite element model of myocardial infarction using a composite material approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational models are effective tools to study cardiac mechanics under normal and pathological conditions. They can be used to gain insight into the physiology of the heart under these conditions while they are adaptable to computer assisted patient-specific clinical diagnosis and therapeutic procedures. Realistic cardiac mechanics models incorporate tissue active/passive response in conjunction with hyperelasticity and anisotropy. Conventional formulation of such models leads to mathematically-complex problems usually solved by custom-developed non-linear finite element (FE) codes. With a few exceptions, such codes are not available to the research community. This article describes a computational cardiac mechanics model developed such that it can be implemented using off-the-shelf FE solvers while tissue pathologies can be introduced in the model in a straight-forward manner. The model takes into account myocardial hyperelasticity, anisotropy, and active contraction forces. It follows a composite tissue modeling approach where the cardiac tissue is decomposed into two major parts: background and myofibers. The latter is modelled as rebars under initial stresses mimicking the contraction forces. The model was applied in silico to study the mechanics of infarcted left ventricle (LV) of a canine. End-systolic strain components, ejection fraction, and stress distribution attained using this LV model were compared quantitatively and qualitatively to corresponding data obtained from measurements as well as to other corresponding LV mechanics models. This comparison showed very good agreement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".