ArticleComputing in cardiology2019
Optimizing the Reconstruction of Cardiac Potentials Using a Novel High Resolution Pericardiac Cage.
Article in Computing in cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tipping the scales of understanding: An engineering approach to design and implement whole-body cardiac electrophysiology experimental models.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Investigation into the importance of using natural PVCs and pathological models for potential-based ECGI validation.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- The electrocardiographic forward problem: A benchmark study.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Novel Experimental Preparation to Assess Electrocardiographic Imaging Reconstruction Techniques.Computing in cardiology · 2020Article
- Improving Localization of Cardiac Geometry Using ECGI.Computing in cardiology · 2020Article
- Experimental Validation of a Novel Extracellular-Based Source Representation of Acute Myocardial Ischemia.Computing in cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExperimental preparations in which cardiac and torso recordings are made simultaneously typically do not have uniform sampling around the entire surface of the heart. To fill in the resulting gaps in coverage, signals captured from the sampled region are extended to the unsampled region of the heart before being utilized in computational models. The resulting errors have never been evaluated systematically. We explored this relationship using a novel experimental preparation, and compared the resulting measurements against a set of interpolation and optimization methods.
methodsMeasurements came from a modified Langenorff preparation in which we placed a rigid, heart shaped pericardiac cage electrode array around an isolated canine heart within an electrolytic torso-tank. Using the measured cage potentials we optimized a reconstruction from the subset of the cage below the base of the heart (ventricular) to the subset above it (atrial). This optimization minimized the difference between the reconstructed and measured signals. We then compared the reconstruction to a spatial Laplacian interpolation of the same potentials.
resultsQualitative results show a high degree of agreement between optimized reconstructed potentials and measured potentials whereas the Laplacian interpolation resulted in poorer reconstructions in most cases. Calculated mean and maximum error were lower for optimization based approaches than spatial Laplacian interpolation. DISCUSSION: In this study we aimed to utilize novel pericardiac cage recordings to investigate interpolation strategies from sampled signals to unsampled signals. We demonstrate that the sampled ventricular subset of signals is sufficient to reconstruct the atrial subset but that Laplacian interpolation does not achieve the level of accuracy that is possible.
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.