↓ Skip to main content

High-order finite element methods for cardiac monodomain simulations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High-order finite element methods for cardiac monodomain simulations
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00217
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin P. Vincent, Matthew J. Gonzales, Andrew K. Gillette, Christopher T. Villongco, Simone Pezzuto, Jeffrey H. Omens, Michael J. Holst, Andrew D. McCulloch

Abstract

Computational modeling of tissue-scale cardiac electrophysiology requires numerically converged solutions to avoid spurious artifacts. The steep gradients inherent to cardiac action potential propagation necessitate fine spatial scales and therefore a substantial computational burden. The use of high-order interpolation methods has previously been proposed for these simulations due to their theoretical convergence advantage. In this study, we compare the convergence behavior of linear Lagrange, cubic Hermite, and the newly proposed cubic Hermite-style serendipity interpolation methods for finite element simulations of the cardiac monodomain equation. The high-order methods reach converged solutions with fewer degrees of freedom and longer element edge lengths than traditional linear elements. Additionally, we propose a dimensionless number, the cell Thiele modulus, as a more useful metric for determining solution convergence than element size alone. Finally, we use the cell Thiele modulus to examine convergence criteria for obtaining clinically useful activation patterns for applications such as patient-specific modeling where the total activation time is known a priori.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Professor 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 23%
Computer Science 6 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Mathematics 3 7%
Chemistry 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,291,573
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,530
of 13,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,723
of 264,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#33
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.