ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
The inverse problem of electrocardiography: From a clinical point of view.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) records body-surface potentials that represent cardiac electrical activity filtered through the torso. Recovering the original cardiac sources from these surface signals-the inverse problem of electrocardiography-is mathematically ill-posed: multiple distinct source configurations produce identical tracings. This constraint is seldom discussed in clinical practice, yet it underlies many recognized ECG diagnostic limitations. Methods: This narrative review provides a clinician-oriented summary of the forward and inverse formulations, and then organizes ECG interpretive pitfalls into five mechanistic categories: volume-conductor filtering, source-model ambiguity, cardiac motion during repolarization, patient-specific anatomy and lead-placement variability, and signal noise and filtering. Each category is linked to quantitative clinical data and to practical reporting recommendations. Results: Volume-conductor attenuation limits VA localization accuracy to 38.9% at the AHA-segment level. Source ambiguity allows 59% of combined anterior-inferior ST elevation to originate from RCA rather than LAD occlusion, and permits unrelated diseases (pulmonary embolism, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy) to produce identical repolarization patterns. Cardiac motion during repolarization introduces time-variant geometric distortion independent of pathology. The Mason-Likar lead system erases established inferior infarctions and shifts QRS axes by up to 60°. Fragmented QRS detects scar (sensitivity 68%, specificity 80%) but fails territorial localization (sensitivity 1.7%). Electrocardiographic imaging reduces localization error but cannot recover spatial detail lost to the torso filter. Conclusions: The inverse problem imposes identifiability limits on every 12-lead ECG. Territorial labels should be treated as probabilistic and corroborated with imaging or hemodynamics when localization carries therapeutic consequences.
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.