↓ Skip to main content

Regularization Techniques for ECG Imaging during Atrial Fibrillation: A Computational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Regularization Techniques for ECG Imaging during Atrial Fibrillation: A Computational Study
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00466
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Figuera, Víctor Suárez-Gutiérrez, Ismael Hernández-Romero, Miguel Rodrigo, Alejandro Liberos, Felipe Atienza, María S. Guillem, Óscar Barquero-Pérez, Andreu M. Climent, Felipe Alonso-Atienza

Abstract

The inverse problem of electrocardiography is usually analyzed during stationary rhythms. However, the performance of the regularization methods under fibrillatory conditions has not been fully studied. In this work, we assessed different regularization techniques during atrial fibrillation (AF) for estimating four target parameters, namely, epicardial potentials, dominant frequency (DF), phase maps, and singularity point (SP) location. We use a realistic mathematical model of atria and torso anatomy with three different electrical activity patterns (i.e., sinus rhythm, simple AF, and complex AF). Body surface potentials (BSP) were simulated using Boundary Element Method and corrupted with white Gaussian noise of different powers. Noisy BSPs were used to obtain the epicardial potentials on the atrial surface, using 14 different regularization techniques. DF, phase maps, and SP location were computed from estimated epicardial potentials. Inverse solutions were evaluated using a set of performance metrics adapted to each clinical target. For the case of SP location, an assessment methodology based on the spatial mass function of the SP location, and four spatial error metrics was proposed. The role of the regularization parameter for Tikhonov-based methods, and the effect of noise level and imperfections in the knowledge of the transfer matrix were also addressed. Results showed that the Bayes maximum-a-posteriori method clearly outperforms the rest of the techniques but requires a priori information about the epicardial potentials. Among the purely non-invasive techniques, Tikhonov-based methods performed as well as more complex techniques in realistic fibrillatory conditions, with a slight gain between 0.02 and 0.2 in terms of the correlation coefficient. Also, the use of a constant regularization parameter may be advisable since the performance was similar to that obtained with a variable parameter (indeed there was no difference for the zero-order Tikhonov method in complex fibrillatory conditions). Regarding the different targets, DF and SP location estimation were more robust with respect to pattern complexity and noise, and most algorithms provided a reasonable estimation of these parameters, even when the epicardial potentials estimation was inaccurate. Finally, the proposed evaluation procedure and metrics represent a suitable framework for techniques benchmarking and provide useful insights for the clinical practice.

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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Mathematics 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#17,820,151
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,183
of 13,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,237
of 319,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#93
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 319,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.