Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32190705›Full record

ArticleComputing in cardiology2019

Comparison of Activation Times Estimation for Potential-Based ECG Imaging.

Matthias Schaufelberger, Steffen Schuler, Laura Bear, Matthijs Cluitmans, Jaume Coll-Font, Önder Nazim Onak, Olaf Dössel, Dana Brooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Electrocardiographic imaging in the atria.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023
    Review
  3. 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

8 authors.

Matthias SchaufelbergerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Steffen SchulerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Laura BearIHU-LIRYC Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Pessac-Bordeaux, France.
Matthijs CluitmansMaastricht School for Cardiovascular Diseases, Maastricht UMC, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Jaume Coll-FontDepartment of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
Önder Nazim OnakMiddle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Olaf DösselInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Dana BrooksDepartment of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.

Funding

TRD - VisualizationP41GM103545 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER R., MACLEOD, ROB S. · 2012 to 2019
$9.7M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Activation times (AT) describe the sequence of cardiac depolarization and represent one of the most important parameters for analysis of cardiac electrical activity. However, estimation of ATs can be challenging due to multiple sources of noise such as fractionation or baseline wander. If ATs are estimated from signals reconstructed using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI), additional problems can arise from over-smoothing or due to ambiguities in the inverse problem. Often, resulting AT maps show falsely homogeneous regions or artificial lines of block. As ATs are not only important clinically, but are also commonly used for evaluation of ECGI methods, it is important to understand where these errors come from. We present results from a community effort to compare methods for AT estimation on a common dataset of simulated ventricular pacings. ECGI reconstructions were performed using three different surface source models: transmembrane voltages, epi-endo potentials and pericardial potentials, all using 2nd-order Tikhonov and 6 different regularization parameters. ATs were then estimated by the community participants and compared to the ground truth. While the pacing site had the largest effect on AT correlation coefficients (CC larger for lateral than for septal pacings), there were also differences between methods and source models that were poorly reflected in CCs. Results indicate that artificial lines of block are most severe for purely temporal methods. Compared to the other source models, ATs estimated from transmembrane voltages are more precise and less prone to artifacts.

Identifiers

PMID32190705
PMCPMC7079739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.