Computational models of atrial fibrillation: achievements, challenges, and perspectives for improving clinical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant advances in its detection, understanding and management, atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a highly prevalent cardiac arrhythmia with a major impact on morbidity and mortality of millions of patients. AF results from complex, dynamic interactions between risk factors and comorbidities that induce diverse atrial remodelling processes. Atrial remodelling increases AF vulnerability and persistence, while promoting disease progression. The variability in presentation and wide range of mechanisms involved in initiation, maintenance and progression of AF, as well as its associated adverse outcomes, make the early identification of causal factors modifiable with therapeutic interventions challenging, likely contributing to suboptimal efficacy of current AF management. Computational modelling facilitates the multilevel integration of multiple datasets and offers new opportunities for mechanistic understanding, risk prediction and personalized therapy. Mathematical simulations of cardiac electrophysiology have been around for 60 years and are being increasingly used to improve our understanding of AF mechanisms and guide AF therapy. This narrative review focuses on the emerging and future applications of computational modelling in AF management. We summarize clinical challenges that may benefit from computational modelling, provide an overview of the different in silico approaches that are available together with their notable achievements, and discuss the major limitations that hinder the routine clinical application of these approaches. Finally, future perspectives are addressed. With the rapid progress in electronic technologies including computing, clinical applications of computational modelling are advancing rapidly. We expect that their application will progressively increase in prominence, especially if their added value can be demonstrated in clinical trials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".