ArticleComputing in cardiology2025
Comparison of LGE MRI Scar Identification Methods for Atrial Computational Modeling.
Article in Computing in cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identification of patient-specific scar and fibrosis is a critical step in the personalization of cardiac computational models. Late gadolinium enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-cMRI) is often used to identify patient anatomy, as well as tissue fibrosis and scar. Automated methods to identify scar from LGE-cMRI exist. Still, there is no clear consensus as to which is best in the context of patient-specific computational modeling of atrial fibrillation. There has been no substantial investigation into the effects that variability in scar may have on downstream patient-specific simulations. This study compares the distribution of scar patterns generated via automated LGE-cMRI analysis alongside human-guided scar identification. We assess the effects each identified scar pattern has on downstream computational modeling outputs by comparing the number of stable re-entrant arrhythmias induced In Silico in atrial fibrillation. We find both substantial disagreement between scar patterns identified via automated and human-guided methods, as well as sensitivity in the arrhythmia simulation outcomes across scar patterns. These results highlight the sensitivity of such computational models to these input parameters and enforce the need for robust personalization tools in the cardiac modeling field.
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.