The inspection paradox: An important consideration in the evaluation of rotor lifetimes in cardiac fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Renewal theory is a statistical approach to model the formation and destruction of phase singularities (PS), which occur at the pivots of spiral waves. A common issue arising during observation of renewal processes is an inspection paradox, due to oversampling of longer events. The objective of this study was to characterise the effect of a potential inspection paradox on the perception of PS lifetimes in cardiac fibrillation. Methods: A multisystem, multi-modality study was performed, examining computational simulations (Aliev-Panfilov (APV) model, Courtmanche-Nattel model), experimentally acquired optical mapping Atrial and Ventricular Fibrillation (AF/VF) data, and clinically acquired human AF and VF. Distributions of all PS lifetimes across full epochs of AF, VF, or computational simulations, were compared with distributions formed from lifetimes of PS existing at 10,000 simulated commencement timepoints. Results: In all systems, an inspection paradox led towards oversampling of PS with longer lifetimes. In APV computational simulations there was a mean PS lifetime shift of +84.9% (95% CI, ± 0.3%) (p < 0.001 for observed vs overall), in Courtmanche-Nattel simulations of AF +692.9% (95% CI, ±57.7%) (p < 0.001), in optically mapped rat AF +374.6% (95% CI, ± 88.5%) (p = 0.052), in human AF mapped with basket catheters +129.2% (95% CI, ±4.1%) (p < 0.05), human AF-HD grid catheters 150.8% (95% CI, ± 9.0%) (p < 0.001), in optically mapped rat VF +171.3% (95% CI, ±15.6%) (p < 0.001), in human epicardial VF 153.5% (95% CI, ±15.7%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Visual inspection of phase movies has the potential to systematically oversample longer lasting PS, due to an inspection paradox. An inspection paradox is minimised by consideration of the overall distribution of PS lifetimes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".