Comparison of LGE MRI Scar Identification Methods for Atrial Computational Modeling.

Jake A Bergquist, Benjamin Orkild, Eugene Kwan, Karli Gillette, Kyoichiro Yazaki, Surachat Jaroonpipatkul, Ed Dibella, Rich Shelton, Erik Beiging, Lowell Chang, Gernot Plank, Shireen Elhabian, Rob S MacLeod, Ravi Ranjan
{"title":"Comparison of LGE MRI Scar Identification Methods for Atrial Computational Modeling.","authors":"Jake A Bergquist, Benjamin Orkild, Eugene Kwan, Karli Gillette, Kyoichiro Yazaki, Surachat Jaroonpipatkul, Ed Dibella, Rich Shelton, Erik Beiging, Lowell Chang, Gernot Plank, Shireen Elhabian, Rob S MacLeod, Ravi Ranjan","doi":"10.22489/cinc.2025.166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":72683,"journal":{"name":"Computing in cardiology","volume":"52 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12867100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computing in cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22489/cinc.2025.166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

心房计算建模中LGE MRI瘢痕识别方法的比较。
识别患者特异性疤痕和纤维化是心脏计算模型个性化的关键步骤。晚期钆增强心脏磁共振成像(LGE-cMRI)通常用于识别患者解剖结构,以及组织纤维化和疤痕。存在从大磁共振成像(large - cmri)中自动识别疤痕的方法。尽管如此,在心房颤动患者特异性计算模型的背景下,没有明确的共识是最好的。目前还没有实质性的研究表明疤痕的可变性对下游患者特异性模拟的影响。这项研究比较了通过自动大磁共振成像分析和人类引导的疤痕识别产生的疤痕模式的分布。我们通过比较硅致心房颤动的稳定再入性心律失常的数量来评估每种确定的疤痕模式对下游计算模型输出的影响。我们发现通过自动化和人工指导方法识别的疤痕模式之间存在实质性的差异,以及跨越疤痕模式的心律失常模拟结果的敏感性。这些结果突出了这种计算模型对这些输入参数的敏感性,并加强了在心脏建模领域对强大的个性化工具的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书