ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
The functional impact of myofiber macroscopic organization and disarray in computational models of the murine heart.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major challenge in computational models of cardiac electromechanics is the reconstruction of myocardial fiber architecture, as direct in vivo measurements of fiber orientation are not feasible. Consequently, rule-based methods are commonly adopted as surrogates, relying on empirical descriptions of fiber organization combined with patient-specific geometries. This study investigates the respective roles of macroscopic fiber architecture and microscopic fiber disarray in cardiac electromechanical simulations. A high-fidelity biventricular electromechanical model of a murine heart was developed using a high-resolution myocardial fiber field obtained via mesoscopic optical imaging, which serves as a reference ground truth. A spatial smoothing strategy is introduced to decouple macroscopic fiber organization from local disarray, and the resulting responses are also compared with those obtained using a rule-based fiber field. The results show that passive mechanics and electrophysiological activation are only weakly affected by fiber disarray, with global chamber compliance and activation times remaining largely unchanged across different fiber descriptions. In contrast, active mechanics is highly sensitive to fiber architecture. Moderate regularization of the experimentally measured fiber field enhances the ventricular pumping efficiency of the computational model by reducing microscopic disarray while preserving the macroscopic helical organization, whereas excessive smoothing or rule-based fiber reconstructions lead to unphysiologically strong or inefficient contraction. Within this framework, two commonly adopted surrogate strategies to account for fiber disarray are investigated: (i) a reduction of the effective cross-bridge stiffness in the active tension model, and (ii) the introduction of controlled misalignment between active tension and the local fiber direction. While both approaches reproduce global hemodynamic indicators comparable to the reference case, an effective reduction of contractility - despite its phenomenological nature - provides a closer match to the reference strain patterns than the introduction of orthogonal active stress components. Overall, the results highlight the dominant role of macroscopic fiber architecture in active mechanics and reveal important limitations of commonly adopted surrogate approaches for modeling fiber disarray.
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.