Non-invasive epicardial and endocardial electrocardiographic imaging for scar-related ventricular tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Contact mapping is currently used to guide catheter ablation of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) but usually provides incomplete assessment of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates. This study investigates the feasibility of non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) in mapping scar substrates and re-entry circuits throughout the epicardium and endocardium. Methods and results: Four patients undergoing endocardial and epicardial mapping and ablation of scar-related VT had computed tomography scans and a 120-lead electrocardiograms, which were used to compute patient-specific ventricular epicardial and endocardial unipolar electrograms (CEGMs). Native-rhythm CEGMs were used to identify sites of myocardial scar and signal fractionation. Computed electrograms of induced VT were used to localize re-entrant circuits and exit sites. Results were compared to in vivo contact mapping data and epicardium-based ECGi solutions. During native rhythm, an average of 493 ± 18 CEGMs were analysed on each patient. Identified regions of scar and fractionation comprised, respectively, 25 ± 4% and 2 ± 1% of the ventricular surface area. Using a linear mixed-effects model grouped at the level of an individual patient, CEGM voltage and duration were significantly associated with contact bipolar voltage. During induced VT, the inclusion of endocardial layer in ECGi made it possible to identify two epicardial vs. three endocardial VT exit sites among five reconstructed re-entry circuits. Conclusion: Electrocardiographic imaging may be used to reveal sites of signal fractionation and to map short-lived VT circuits. Its capacity to map throughout epicardial and endocardial layers may improve the delineation of 3D re-entry circuits and their arrhythmogenic substrates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".