ArticleScientific reports2024
Unlocking cardiac motion: assessing software and machine learning for single-cell and cardioid kinematic insights.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PMArchives of toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The heart coordinates its functional parameters for optimal beat-to-beat mechanical activity. Reliable detection and quantification of these parameters still represent a hot topic in cardiovascular research. Nowadays, computer vision allows the development of open-source algorithms to measure cellular kinematics. However, the analysis software can vary based on analyzed specimens. In this study, we compared different software performances in in-silico model, in-vitro mouse adult ventricular cardiomyocytes and cardioids. We acquired in-vitro high-resolution videos during suprathreshold stimulation at 0.5-1-2 Hz, adapting the protocol for the cardioids. Moreover, we exposed the samples to inotropic and depolarizing substances. We analyzed in-silico and in-vitro videos by (i) MUSCLEMOTION, the gold standard among open-source software; (ii) CONTRACTIONWAVE, a recently developed tracking software; and (iii) ViKiE, an in-house customized video kinematic evaluation software. We enriched the study with three machine-learning algorithms to test the robustness of the motion-tracking approaches. Our results revealed that all software produced comparable estimations of cardiac mechanical parameters. For instance, in cardioids, beat duration measurements at 0.5 Hz were 1053.58 ms (MUSCLEMOTION), 1043.59 ms (CONTRACTIONWAVE), and 937.11 ms (ViKiE). ViKiE exhibited higher sensitivity in exposed samples due to its localized kinematic analysis, while MUSCLEMOTION and CONTRACTIONWAVE offered temporal correlation, combining global assessment with time-efficient analysis. Finally, machine learning reveals greater accuracy when trained with MUSCLEMOTION dataset in comparison with the other software (accuracy > 83%). In conclusion, our findings provide valuable insights for the accurate selection and integration of software tools into the kinematic analysis pipeline, tailored to the experimental protocol.
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.