Feasibility study shows concordance between image‐based virtual‐heart ablation targets and predicted ECG‐based arrhythmia exit‐sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We recently developed two noninvasive methodologies to help guide VT ablation: population-derived automated VT exit localization (PAVEL) and virtual-heart arrhythmia ablation targeting (VAAT). We hypothesized that while very different in their nature, limitations, and type of ablation targets (substrate-based vs. clinical VT), the image-based VAAT and the ECG-based PAVEL technologies would be spatially concordant in their predictions. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to test this hypothesis in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients in a retrospective feasibility study. METHODS: Four post-infarct patients who underwent LV VT ablation and had pre-procedural LGE-CMRs were enrolled. Virtual hearts with patient-specific scar and border zone identified potential VTs and ablation targets. Patient-specific PAVEL based on a population-derived statistical method localized VT exit sites onto a patient-specific 238-triangle LV endocardial surface. RESULTS: Ten induced VTs were analyzed and 9-exit sites were localized by PAVEL onto the patient-specific LV endocardial surface. All nine predicted VT exit sites were in the scar border zone defined by voltage mapping and spatially correlated with successful clinical lesions. There were 2.3 ± 1.9 VTs per patient in the models. All five VAAT lesions fell within regions ablated clinically. VAAT targets correlated well with 6 PAVEL-predicted VT exit sites. The distance between the center of the predicted VT-exit-site triangle and nearest corresponding VAAT ablation lesion was 10.7 ± 7.3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: VAAT targets are concordant with the patient-specific PAVEL-predicted VT exit sites. These findings support investigation into combining these two complementary technologies as a noninvasive, clinical tool for targeting clinically induced VTs and regions likely to harbor potential VTs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".