Effect of Shock Vector Orientation in Modulating and Terminating Rotors – a Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main treatment option for Ventricular Fibrillation (VF), especially in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) is defibrillation. Typically, the survival-to-discharge rates are very poor for OHCA. Existing studies have shown that rotors may be the sources of arrhythmia and ablating them could modulate or terminate VF. However, tracking rotors and ablating them is not a feasible solution in a OHCA scenario. Hence, if the sources (or rotors) can be regionally localized non-invasively and this information can be used to direct the orientation of the shock vectors, it may aid the termination of rotors and defibrillation success. In this work, using computational modeling, we present our initial results on testing the effect of shock vector orientation on modulating (or) terminating rotors. A combination of Sovilj's and Aliev Panfilov's monodomain cardiac models were used in inducing rotors and testing the effect of shock vector magnitude and direction. Based on our simulation results on an average with four experimental trials, a shock vector directed in the perpendicular direction along the axis of the rotor terminated the rotor with 16% lesser magnitude than parallel direction and 38% lesser magnitude than in oblique direction.Clinical Relevance- A rotor localization dependent defibrillation strategy may aid the defibrillation protocol procedures to improve the survival rates. Based on the four experimental trials, the results indicate shock vectors oriented perpendicular to the axis of the rotors were efficient in modulating or terminating rotors with lower magnitude than other directions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".