Understanding the Utility of Endocardial Electrocardiographic Imaging in Epi-Endocardial Mapping of 3D Reentrant Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies of VT mechanisms are largely based on a 2D portrait of reentrant circuits on one surface of the heart. This oversimplifies the 3D circuit that involves the depth of the myocardium. Simultaneous epicardial and endocardial (epi-endo) mapping was shown to facilitate a 3D delineation of VT circuits, which is however difficult via invasive mapping. Objective: This study investigates the capability of noninvasive epicardial-endocardial electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) to elucidate the 3D construct of VT circuits, emphasizing the differentiation of epicardial, endocardial, and intramural circuits and to determine the proximity of mid-wall exits to the epicardial or endocardial surfaces. Methods: 120-lead ECGs of VT in combination with subject-specific heart-torso geometry are used to compute unipolar electrograms (CEGM) on ventricular epicardium and endocardia. Activation isochrones are constructed, and the percentage of activation within VT cycle length is calculated on each surface. This classifies VT circuits into 2D (surface only), uniform transmural, nonuniform transmural, and mid-myocardial (focal on surfaces). Furthermore, the endocardial breakthrough time was accurately measured using Laplacian eigenmaps, and by correlating the delay time of the epi-endo breakthroughs, the relative distance of a mid-wall exit to the epicardium or the endocardium surfaces was identified. Results: We analyzed 23 simulated and in-vivo VT circuits on post-infarction porcine hearts. In simulated circuits, ECGI classified 21% as 2D and 78% as 3D: 82.6% of these were correctly classified. The relative timing between epicardial and endocardial breakthroughs was correctly captured across all cases. In in-vivo circuits, ECGI classified 25% as 2D and 75% as 3D: in all cases, circuit exits and entrances were consistent with potential critical isthmus delineated from combined LGE-MRI and catheter mapping data. Conclusions: ECGI epi-endo mapping has the potential for fast delineation of 3D VT circuits, which may augment detailed catheter mapping for VT ablation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".