ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2023
Studying the Influence of Finite Element Mesh Size on the Accuracy of Ventricular Tachycardia Simulation.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational approaches in bioprinting processes.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2026Article
- Epicardial Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation: A Contemporary Review of Indications, Techniques, and Practical Approaches for Challenging Substrates.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative analysis of the ten Tusscher and Tomek human ventricular cell models at cellular, tissue, and organ levels: Implications for post-infarct ventricular tachycardia simulation.Physiological reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a life-threatening heart condition commonly seen in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Although personalized computational modeling has been used to understand VT and its treatment noninvasively, this approach can be computationally intensive and time consuming. Therefore, finding a balance between mesh size and computational efficiency is important. This study aimed to find an optimal mesh resolution that minimizes the need for computational resources while maintaining numerical accuracy and to investigate the effect of mesh resolution variation on the simulation results. Methods: We constructed ventricular models from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging data from six patients with MI. We created seven different models for each patient, with average edge lengths ranging from 315 to 645 µm using commercial software, Mimics. Programmed electrical stimulation was used to assess VT inducibility from 19 sites in each heart model. Results: The simulation results in the slab model with adaptive tetrahedral mesh (same as in the patient-specific model) showed that the absolute and relative differences in conduction velocity (CV) were 6.1 cm/s and 7.8% between average mesh sizes of 142 and 600 µm, respectively. However, the simulation results in the six patient-specific models showed that average mesh sizes with 350 µm yielded over 85% accuracy for clinically relevant VT. Although average mesh sizes of 417 and 478 µm could also achieve approximately 80% accuracy for clinically relevant VT, the percentage of incorrectly predicted VTs increases. When conductivity was modified to match the CV in the model with the finest mesh size, the overall ratio of positively predicted VT increased. Conclusions: The proposed personalized heart model could achieve an optimal balance between simulation time and VT prediction accuracy when discretized with adaptive tetrahedral meshes with an average edge length about 350 µm.
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.