ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2023
Evaluation of an open-source pipeline to create patient-specific left atrial models: A reproducibility study.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the Effect of Anatomical Variability on Atrial Fibrillation Dynamics Through a Novel Framework for Personalised Atrial Model Generation.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Assessing the importance of sex and disease-specific anatomy in electrophysiology and mechanical simulations with a newly developed public virtual cohort of four-chamber heart models.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Multi-chamber three-dimensional myocardial strain assessment by computed tomography: a comparison with speckle tracking echocardiography and association with pulmonary hypertension in severe aortic stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Left Atrial Fibrosis With Cardiac MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- Regional heterogeneity in left atrial stiffness impacts passive deformation in a cohort of patient-specific models.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Is regional atrial strain a useful surrogate of regional atrial fibrosis in atrial cardiomyopathy?European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Computational modelling of biological systems now and then: revisiting tools and visions from the beginning of the century.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Review
- Developing cardiac digital twin populations powered by machine learning provides electrophysiological insights in conduction and repolarization.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Identification of atrial myopathy and atrial fibrillation recurrence after ablation using 3D left atrial phasic strain from retrospective gated computed tomography.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2025Article
- Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices.PLoS computational biology · 2024Review
- Systematic in-silico evaluation of fibrosis effects on re-entrant wave dynamics in atrial tissue.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Topological state-space estimation of functional human brain networks.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- A three-dimensional left atrial motion estimation from retrospective gated computed tomography: application in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Constructing bilayer and volumetric atrial models at scale.Interface focus · 2023Article
- Advancing clinical translation of cardiac biomechanics models: a comprehensive review, applications and future pathways.Frontiers in physics · 2023Article
- Evaluation of an open-source pipeline to create patient-specific left atrial models: A reproducibility study.Computers in biology and medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This work presents an open-source software pipeline to create patient-specific left atrial models with fibre orientations and a fibrDEFAULTosis map, suitable for electrophysiology simulations, and quantifies the intra and inter observer reproducibility of the model creation. The semi-automatic pipeline takes as input a contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiogram, and a late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) contrast magnetic resonance (CMR). Five operators were allocated 20 cases each from a set of 50 CMR datasets to create a total of 100 models to evaluate inter and intra-operator variability. Each output model consisted of: (1) a labelled surface mesh open at the pulmonary veins and mitral valve, (2) fibre orientations mapped from a diffusion tensor MRI (DTMRI) human atlas, (3) fibrosis map extracted from the LGE-CMR scan, and (4) simulation of local activation time (LAT) and phase singularity (PS) mapping. Reproducibility in our pipeline was evaluated by comparing agreement in shape of the output meshes, fibrosis distribution in the left atrial body, and fibre orientations. Reproducibility in simulations outputs was evaluated in the LAT maps by comparing the total activation times, and the mean conduction velocity (CV). PS maps were compared with the structural similarity index measure (SSIM). The users processed in total 60 cases for inter and 40 cases for intra-operator variability. Our workflow allows a single model to be created in 16.72 ± 12.25 min. Similarity was measured with shape, percentage of fibres oriented in the same direction, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for the fibrosis calculation. Shape differed noticeably only with users' selection of the mitral valve and the length of the pulmonary veins from the ostia to the distal end; fibrosis agreement was high, with ICC of 0.909 (inter) and 0.999 (intra); fibre orientation agreement was high with 60.63% (inter) and 71.77% (intra). The LAT showed good agreement, where the median ± IQR of the absolute difference of the total activation times was 2.02 ± 2.45 ms for inter, and 1.37 ± 2.45 ms for intra. Also, the average ± sd of the mean CV difference was -0.00404 ± 0.0155 m/s for inter, and 0.0021 ± 0.0115 m/s for intra. Finally, the PS maps showed a moderately good agreement in SSIM for inter and intra, where the mean ± sd SSIM for inter and intra were 0.648 ± 0.21 and 0.608 ± 0.15, respectively. Although we found notable differences in the models, as a consequence of user input, our tests show that the uncertainty caused by both inter and intra-operator variability is comparable with uncertainty due to estimated fibres, and image resolution accuracy of segmentation tools.
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.