ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021
Cardiac Activation Maps Reconstruction: A Comparative Study Between Data-Driven and Physics-Based Methods.
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 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.
- Full-field surrogate modeling of cardiac electrophysiology encoding geometric variability.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2026Article
- 3D Spatiotemporal Activation Mapping of Cardiac Organoids Using Conformal Shell Microelectrode Arrays (MEAs).Research square · 2025Article
- Hybrid Neural State-Space Modeling for Supervised and Unsupervised Electrocardiographic Imaging.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2024Article
- A review of evaluation approaches for explainable AI with applications in cardiology.Artificial intelligence review · 2024Article
- Recurrence quantification analysis for fine-scale characterisation of arrhythmic patterns in cardiac tissue.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Electrocardiographic imaging in the atria.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the essential diagnostic tools of cardiac arrhythmia is activation mapping. Noninvasive current mapping procedures include electrocardiographic imaging. It allows reconstructing heart surface potentials from measured body surface potentials. Then, activation maps are generated using the heart surface potentials. Recently, a study suggests to deploy artificial neural networks to estimate activation maps directly from body surface potential measurements. Here we carry out a comparative study between the data-driven approach DirectMap and noninvasive classic technique based on reconstructed heart surface potentials using both Finite element method combined with L1-norm regularization (FEM-L1) and the spatial adaptation of Time-delay neural networks (SATDNN-AT). In this work, we assess the performance of the three approaches using a synthetic single paced-rhythm dataset generated on the atria surface. The results show that data-driven approach DirectMap quantitatively outperforms the two other methods. In fact, we observe an absolute activation time error and a correlation coefficient, respectively, equal to 7.20
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.