ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Rapid prediction of cardiac activation in the left ventricle with geometric deep learning: a step towards cardiac resynchronization therapy planning.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a common intervention for patients with dyssynchronous heart failure, yet approximately one-third of recipients fail to respond, partly due to suboptimal lead placement. Identifying optimal pacing sites remains challenging, largely due to patient-specific anatomical variability and limitations of current individualized planning strategies. In a step toward an in-silico approach, we develop two geometric deep learning models, based on graph neural network (GNN) and geometry-informed neural operator (GINO), to predict activation time maps on left ventricular (LV) geometries in real time. Trained on a large dataset generated from finite-element simulations spanning a wide range of synthetic LV shapes, pacing site configurations, and tissue conductivities, the GINO model outperforms the GNN on synthetic cases (1.38% vs 2.44% error), while both demonstrate comparable performance on real-world LV geometries (GINO: 4.79% vs GNN: 4.07%). Using the trained models, we develop a workflow to identify an optimal pacing site on the LV from a given activation time map and show that both models can robustly recover ground-truth subject-specific parameters from noisy inputs. In conjunction with an interactive web-based interface ( https://dcsim.egr.msu.edu/ ), this study shows potential and motivates future extension toward a clinical decision-support tool for personalized pre-procedural CRT optimization.
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.