Unipolar electrogram‐based voltage mapping with far‐field cancellation to improve detection of abnormal atrial substrate during atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An important substrate for atrial fibrillation (AF) is fibrotic atrial myopathy. Identifying low voltage, myopathic regions during AF using traditional bipolar voltage mapping is limited by the directional dependency of wave propagation. Our objective was to evaluate directionally independent unipolar voltage mapping, but with far-field cancellation, to identify low-voltage regions during AF. METHODS: In 12 patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation for AF, high-resolution voltage mapping was performed in the left atrium during sinus rhythm and AF using a roving 20-pole circular catheter. Bipolar electrograms (EGMs) (Bi) < 0.5 mV in sinus rhythm identified low-voltage regions. During AF, bipolar voltage and unipolar voltage maps were created, the latter with (uni-res) and without (uni-orig) far-field cancellation using a novel, validated least-squares algorithm. RESULTS: Uni-res voltage was ~25% lower than uni-orig for both low voltage and normal atrial regions. Far-field EGM had a dominant frequency (DF) of 4.5-6.0 Hz, and its removal resulted in a lower DF for uni-orig compared with uni-res (5.1 ± 1.5 vs. 4.8 ± 1.5 Hz; p < .001). Compared with Bi, uni-res had a significantly greater area under the receiver operator curve (0.80 vs. 0.77; p < .05), specificity (86% vs. 76%; p < .001), and positive predictive value (43% vs. 30%; p < .001) for detecting low-voltage during AF. Similar improvements in specificity and positive predictive value were evident for uni-res versus uni-orig. CONCLUSION: Far-field EGM can be reliably removed from uni-orig using our novel, least-squares algorithm. Compared with Bi and uni-orig, uni-res is more accurate in detecting low-voltage regions during AF. This approach may improve substrate mapping and ablation during AF, and merits further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".