Effect of Segmentation Uncertainty on the ECGI Inverse Problem Solution and Source Localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI) is a promising tool to non-invasively map the electrical activity of the heart using body surface potentials (BSPs) and the patient specific anatomical data. One of the first steps of ECGI is the segmentation of the heart and torso geometries. In the clinical practice, the segmentation procedure is not fully-automated yet and is in consequence operator-dependent. We expect that the inter-operator variation in cardiac segmentation would influence the ECGI solution. This effect remains however non quantified. In the present work, we study the effect of segmentation variability on the ECGI estimation of the cardiac activity with 262 shape models generated from fifteen different segmentations. Therefore, we designed two test cases: with and without shape model uncertainty. Moreover, we used four cases for ectopic ventricular excitation and compared the ECGI results in terms of reconstructed activation times and excitation origins. The preliminary results indicate that a small variation of the activation maps can be observed with a model uncertainty but no significant effect on the source localization is observed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".