MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901288125 · doi:10.1109/embc.2018.8512883

A Novel Bi-Level Framework for Fitting the Parameters in Cardiac Cellular Models

2018· article· en· W2901288125 on OpenAlexaff
Elnaz Pouranbarani, Anders Nygren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinearizationGenetic algorithmMathematicsSensitivity (control systems)Mathematical optimizationMean squared errorParametrization (atmospheric modeling)Optimization problemNonlinear systemLeast-squares function approximationAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac models constructed from sets of differential equations provide invaluable information about heart mechanism and disorder of both human and animals. As tuning the parameters is a profoundly important step of modeling, this paper presents a novel parametrization technique based on a bilevel framework that benefits from two solution approaches, namely mixed integer genetic algorithm (MIGA) and linear least squares (LLS). In the upper-level optimization step, the action potential (AP) of the model is fitted to the reference AP using MIGA. In the lower-level optimization step, the mismatch between the total current of the model and reference is minimized via a clamp concept-based linearization and LLS solution approach. Notably, the clamp concept can diminish the nonlinearity of the parameter fitting problem. The issue of dependency on initial parameters in the lower-level problem, as well as the sensitivity of model parameters to linearization, are circumvented by MIGA in the upper-level optimization. For evaluation of MIGA-LLS performance, two complex human ventricular models are employed. The results demonstrate that in comparison to the genetic algorithm (GA)-based approach, the proposed framework significantly reduces the average and variation of normalized root-mean-squared error (NRMSE) in terms of the AP and total current in different trials. Variability in the resulting parameter values is considerably decreased as well.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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