Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34108887›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021

CVAR-Seg: An Automated Signal Segmentation Pipeline for Conduction Velocity and Amplitude Restitution.

Mark Nothstein, Armin Luik, Amir Jadidi, Jorge Sánchez, Laura A Unger, Eike M Wülfers, Olaf Dössel, Gunnar Seemann, Claus Schmitt, Axel Loewe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2021. 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
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mark NothsteinInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Armin LuikMedizinische Klinik IV, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Amir JadidiKlinik für Kardiologie und Angiologie II, University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany.
Jorge SánchezInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Laura A UngerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Eike M WülfersFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Olaf DösselInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Gunnar SeemannFaculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Claus SchmittMedizinische Klinik IV, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Axel LoeweInstitute of Biomedical Engineering (IBT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · DEStädtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe · DEUniversitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad Krozingen · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRate-varying S1S2 stimulation protocols can be used for restitution studies to characterize atrial substrate, ionic remodeling, and atrial fibrillation risk. Clinical restitution studies with numerous patients create large amounts of these data. Thus, an automated pipeline to evaluate clinically acquired S1S2 stimulation protocol data necessitates consistent, robust, reproducible, and precise evaluation of local activation times, electrogram amplitude, and conduction velocity. Here, we present the CVAR-Seg pipeline, developed focusing on three challenges: (i) No previous knowledge of the stimulation parameters is available, thus, arbitrary protocols are supported. (ii) The pipeline remains robust under different noise conditions. (iii) The pipeline supports segmentation of atrial activities in close temporal proximity to the stimulation artifact, which is challenging due to larger amplitude and slope of the stimulus compared to the atrial activity. METHODS AND

resultsThe S1 basic cycle length was estimated by time interval detection. Stimulation time windows were segmented by detecting synchronous peaks in different channels surpassing an amplitude threshold and identifying time intervals between detected stimuli. Elimination of the stimulation artifact by a matched filter allowed detection of local activation times in temporal proximity. A non-linear signal energy operator was used to segment periods of atrial activity. Geodesic and Euclidean inter electrode distances allowed approximation of conduction velocity. The automatic segmentation performance of the CVAR-Seg pipeline was evaluated on 37 synthetic datasets with decreasing signal-to-noise ratios. Noise was modeled by reconstructing the frequency spectrum of clinical noise. The pipeline retained a median local activation time error below a single sample (1 ms) for signal-to-noise ratios as low as 0 dB representing a high clinical noise level. As a proof of concept, the pipeline was tested on a CARTO case of a paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patient and yielded plausible restitution curves for conduction speed and amplitude.

conclusionThe proposed openly available CVAR-Seg pipeline promises fast, fully automated, robust, and accurate evaluations of atrial signals even with low signal-to-noise ratios. This is achieved by solving the proximity problem of stimulation and atrial activity to enable standardized evaluation without introducing human bias for large data sets.

Indexed as

amplitudeatrial tissue characterizationcardiac electrophysiologyconduction velocityrestitutionS1S2 stimulation protocolsignal segmentation

Identifiers

PMID34108887
PMCPMC8181407
OpenAlexW3164497274

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.