Trial reportComputers in biology and medicine2019
Systematic differences of non-invasive dominant frequency estimation compared to invasive dominant frequency estimation in atrial fibrillation.
Trial report in Computers in biology and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An integrated platform for 2-D and 3-D optical and electrical mapping of arrhythmias in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Automatic Localization of Stable Highest Dominant Frequency Area in AF Patients Based on Spatial Aggregation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recurrence quantification analysis for fine-scale characterisation of arrhythmic patterns in cardiac tissue.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Electrocardiographic Imaging for Atrial Fibrillation: A Perspective From Computer Models and Animal Experiments to Clinical Value.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-invasive analysis of atrial fibrillation (AF) using body surface mapping (BSM) has gained significant interest, with attempts at interpreting atrial spectro-temporal parameters from body surface signals. As these body surface signals could be affected by properties of the torso volume conductor, this interpretation is not always straightforward. This paper highlights the volume conductor effects and influences of the algorithm parameters for identifying the dominant frequency (DF) from cardiac signals collected simultaneously on the torso and atrial surface. Bi-atrial virtual electrograms (VEGMs) and BSMs were recorded simultaneously for 5 min from 10 patients undergoing ablation for persistent AF. Frequency analysis was performed on 4 s segments. DF was defined as the frequency with highest power between 4 and 10 Hz with and without applying organization index (OI) thresholds. The volume conductor effect was assessed by analyzing the highest DF (HDF) difference of each VEGM HDF against its BSM counterpart. Significant differences in HDF values between intra-cardiac and torso signals could be observed, independent of OI threshold. This difference increases with increasing endocardial HDF (BSM-VEGM median difference from -0.13 Hz for VEGM HDF at 6.25 ± 0.25 Hz to -4.24 Hz at 9.75 ± 0.25 Hz), thereby confirming the theory of the volume conductor effect in real-life situations. Applying an OI threshold strongly affected the BSM HDF area size and location and atrial HDF area location. These results suggest that volume conductor and measurement algorithm effects must be considered for appropriate clinical interpretation.
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.