Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24416228›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A quantitative comparison of the behavior of human ventricular cardiac electrophysiology models in tissue.

Mohamed M Elshrif, Elizabeth M Cherry

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Frontiers in physiology · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Data integration for the numerical simulation of cardiac electrophysiology.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021
    Review
  7. The transient outward potassium current plays a key role in spiral wave breakup in ventricular tissue.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Calibration of ionic and cellular cardiac electrophysiology models.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine · 2020
    Review
  11. An audit of uncertainty in multi-scale cardiac electrophysiology models.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020
    Review
  12. Variability in electrophysiological properties and conducting obstacles controls re-entry risk in heterogeneous ischaemic tissue.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohamed M ElshrifB. Thomas Golisano College of Computing and Information Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, United States of America.
Elizabeth M CherrySchool of Mathematical Sciences, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, United States of America.
Rochester Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Electrophysiological PhenomenaModels, CardiovascularVentricular FunctionAction PotentialsCalciumCell MembraneGlucansHeart Conduction SystemHeart VentriclesHumansTachycardiaalternanCalciumGlucans

Identifiers

PMID24416228
PMCPMC3885549
OpenAlexW2068320514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.