Physiological accuracy in simulating refractory cardiac tissue: the volume-averaged bidomain model vs. the cell-based EMI model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The refractory period of cardiac tissue can be quantitatively described using strength-interval (SI) curves. The information captured in SI curves is pertinent to the design of anti-arrhythmic devices including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. As computational cardiac modelling becomes more prevalent, it is feasible to consider the generation of computationally derived SI curves as a supplement or precursor to curves that are experimentally derived. It is beneficial, therefore, to examine the profiles of the SI curves produced by different cardiac tissue models to determine whether some models capture the refractory period more accurately than others. In this study, we compare the unipolar SI curves of two tissue models: the current state-of-the-art bidomain model and the recently developed extracellular-membrane-intracellular (EMI) model. The EMI model's resolution of individual cell structure makes it a more detailed model than the bidomain model, which forgoes the structure of individual cardiac cells in favour of treating them homogeneously as a continuum. We find that the resulting SI curves elucidate differences between the models, including that the behaviour of the EMI model is noticeably closer to the refractory behaviour of experimental data compared to that of the bidomain model. These results hold implications for future computational pacemaker simulations and shed light on the predicted refractory properties of cardiac tissue from each model.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".