ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Machine learning for enhancing the ablation outcomes using recurrence quantification analysis in human persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several ablation strategies, including dominant frequency (DF), complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs), and rotors, have been used to target the drivers of atrial fibrillation (AF). The success rate of these strategies remains suboptimal. Objective: This work aims to develop a model using recurrence quantification analysis (RQA) variables and machine learning (ML) algorithms to predict the responses of ablating intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) and their impact on terminating AF and cycle length changes. Methods: 3206 non-contact EGMs were collected from 10 persistent AF patients. Two classes were considered as labels based on EGM's responses to ablation (positive and negative responses). Nine RQA-based variables were extracted from the EGMs. Ten ML classifiers were trained and tested using leave one patient out a 10-fold cross-validation (LOPOCV)). Results: The decision tree outperformed other ML models, achieving a balanced accuracy of 73.46%, F1_score of 74.05, and AUROC of 0.74. The high performance was achieved using the three most important features (determinism, longest diagonal line, and recurrence rate) with the importance of 30%, 23%, and 13%, respectively. Statistical analysis showed high values of all median RQA variables for the EGM's negative responses over the positive ones. Conclusions: Our results show that RQA variables can effectively highlight the electrophysiological differences between EGM positive and negative responses to catheter ablation. The model might aid cardiologists in predicting ablation outcomes and reducing the number of unsuccessful ablations. A comparison between the proposed approach and previous works shows the superiority of this model.
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.