MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411255293 · doi:10.1161/circep.124.013611

Feasibility of Machine Learned Intracardiac Electrograms to Predict Postinfarction Ventricular Scar Topography

2025· article· en· W4411255293 on OpenAlexaff
Kasun De Silva, Timothy Campbell, Richard G. Bennett, Samual Turnbull, Ashwin Bhaskaran, Robert D. Anderson, Christopher J. Davey, Alexandra K O’Donohue, Aaron Schindeler, Dinesh Selvakumar, Yasuhito Kotake, Chi-jen Hsu, James J.H. Chong, Eddy Kizana, Saurabh Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntracardiac injectionCardiologyInternal medicineVentricular tachycardia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate delineation of scar patterns is valuable for guiding catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia. We hypothesized that scar and its pattern of distribution can be determined from intracardiac electrograms using computational signal processing and that further improvements in classification can be achieved with a convolutional neural network. METHODS: A total of 5 sheep underwent anteroseptal infarction (plus 1 healthy control) with electroanatomic mapping (129±12 days post-infarct). A whole-heart histological model of the postinfarction scar was created and coregistered to ventricular electrograms. Electrograms were matched to scar pattern categories; no scar, at least endocardial scar: at least intramural scar (intramural scar sparing the endocardium), or epicardial-only scar (epicardial scar sparing the endocardium/intramural space). A suite of signal-processing features was extracted from bipolar electrograms. Furthermore, bipolar and unipolar electrograms were used to train a time series convolutional neural network (InceptionTime). RESULTS: A total of 11 551 electrograms were matched to 451 biopsies. Bipolar and unipolar voltage alone were poor classifiers of scar patterns. For each of the scar labels, 20 bipolar electrogram features (predominantly within the frequency domain) yielded an area under the curve of 0.815, 0.810, 0.704, and 0.681 to predict no scar, at least endocardial scar, at least intramural scar, and epicardial-only scar, respectively. Substantial improvement was achieved with a convolutional neural network trained on unipolar electrograms: areas under the curve and accuracy (averaged across wavefronts) were 0.977 and 0.929 for no scar, 0.970 and 0.919 for at least endocardial scar, 0.909 and 0.959 for at least intramural scar and 0.926 and 0.958 for epicardial-only scar. CONCLUSIONS: Convolutional neural network-derived analysis of unipolar electrogram data has excellent predictive value for determination of scar patterns. Computational analyses of electrogram data beyond voltage and other time-domain features are necessary to improve the identification of arrhythmogenic sites in the ventricle.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207