ArticlePloS one2014
A quantitative comparison of the behavior of human ventricular cardiac electrophysiology models in tissue.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- The all-or-none repolarization in cardiac ventricular myocytes: anFrontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Impact of Calcium and Potassium Currents on Spiral Wave Dynamics in the LR1 Model.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Computational modeling of cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmogenesis: toward clinical translation.Physiological reviews · 2024Review
- Article
- Rate-dependent effects of lidocaine on cardiac dynamics: Development and analysis of a low-dimensional drug-channel interaction model.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Data integration for the numerical simulation of cardiac electrophysiology.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021Review
- The transient outward potassium current plays a key role in spiral wave breakup in ventricular tissue.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021Article
- Sex Differences in Drug-Induced Arrhythmogenesis.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Calibration of ionic and cellular cardiac electrophysiology models.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine · 2020Review
- An audit of uncertainty in multi-scale cardiac electrophysiology models.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020Review
- Variability in electrophysiological properties and conducting obstacles controls re-entry risk in heterogeneous ischaemic tissue.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020Article
- Simulation of action potential propagation based on the ghost structure method.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Article
- Slow Delayed Rectifier Current Protects Ventricular Myocytes From Arrhythmic Dynamics Across Multiple Species: A Computational Study.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2018Article
- A Heart for Diversity: Simulating Variability in Cardiac Arrhythmia Research.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Review
- Reentry via high-frequency pacing in a mathematical model for human-ventricular cardiac tissue with a localized fibrotic region.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- A mathematical model for active contraction in healthy and failing myocytes and left ventricles.PloS one · 2017Article
- Evolution of strategies to improve preclinical cardiac safety testing.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2016Review
- From Single Myocyte to Whole Heart: The Intricate Dance of Electrophysiology and Modeling.Circulation research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerical integration of mathematical models of heart cell electrophysiology provides an important computational tool for studying cardiac arrhythmias, but the abundance of available models complicates selecting an appropriate model. We study the behavior of two recently published models of human ventricular action potentials, the Grandi-Pasqualini-Bers (GPB) and the O'Hara-Virág-Varró-Rudy (OVVR) models, and compare the results with four previously published models and with available experimental and clinical data. We find the shapes and durations of action potentials and calcium transients differ between the GPB and OVVR models, as do the magnitudes and rate-dependent properties of transmembrane currents and the calcium transient. Differences also occur in the steady-state and S1-S2 action potential duration and conduction velocity restitution curves, including a maximum conduction velocity for the OVVR model roughly half that of the GPB model and well below clinical values. Between single cells and tissue, both models exhibit differences in properties, including maximum upstroke velocity, action potential amplitude, and minimum diastolic interval. Compared to experimental data, action potential durations for the GPB and OVVR models agree fairly well (although OVVR epicardial action potentials are shorter), but maximum slopes of steady-state restitution curves are smaller. Although studies show alternans in normal hearts, it occurs only in the OVVR model, and only for a narrow range of cycle lengths. We find initiated spiral waves do not progress to sustained breakup for either model. The dominant spiral wave period of the GPB model falls within clinically relevant values for ventricular tachycardia (VT), but for the OVVR model, the dominant period is longer than periods associated with VT. Our results should facilitate choosing a model to match properties of interest in human cardiac tissue and to replicate arrhythmia behavior more closely. Furthermore, by indicating areas where existing models disagree, our findings suggest avenues for further experimental work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.