Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30131713›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2018

Dispersion of Recovery and Vulnerability to Re-entry in a Model of Human Atrial Tissue With Simulated Diffuse and Focal Patterns of Fibrosis.

Richard H Clayton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Homogenisation for the monodomain model in the presence of microscopic fibrotic structures.Communications in nonlinear science & numerical simulation · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. An audit of uncertainty in multi-scale cardiac electrophysiology models.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  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

1 author.

Richard H ClaytonDepartment of Computer Science, Insigneo Institute for in-silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fibrosis in atrial tissue can act as a substrate for persistent atrial fibrillation, and can be focal or diffuse. Regions of fibrosis are associated with slowed or blocked conduction, and several approaches have been used to model these effects. In this study a computational model of 2D atrial tissue was used to investigate how the spatial scale of regions of simulated fibrosis influenced the dispersion of action potential duration (APD) and vulnerability to re-entry in simulated normal human atrial tissue, and human tissue that has undergone remodeling as a result of persistent atrial fibrillation. Electrical activity was simulated in a 10 × 10 cm square 2D domain, with a spatially varying diffusion coefficient as described below. Cellular electrophysiology was represented by the Courtemanche model for human atrial cells, with the model parameters set for normal and remodeled cells. The effect of fibrosis was modeled with a smoothly varying diffusion coefficient, obtained from sampling a Gaussian random field (GRF) with length scales of between 1.25 and 10.0 mm. Twenty samples were drawn from each field, and used to allocate a value of diffusion coefficient between 0.05 and 0.2 mm

Indexed as

atrial fibrillationcardiac electrophysiologycomputer modelCourtemanche modelfibrosisGaussian random field

Identifiers

PMID30131713
PMCPMC6090998

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.