Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39043725›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Evaluating computational efforts and physiological resolution of mathematical models of cardiac tissue.

Karoline Horgmo Jæger, James D Trotter, Xing Cai, Hermenegild Arevalo, Aslak Tveito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Sometimes extracellular recordings fail for good reasons.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karoline Horgmo JægerSimula Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway. karolihj@simula.no.
James D TrotterSimula Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.
Xing CaiSimula Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.
Hermenegild ArevaloSimula Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.
Aslak TveitoSimula Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking 955495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational techniques have significantly advanced our understanding of cardiac electrophysiology, yet they have predominantly concentrated on averaged models that do not represent the intricate dynamics near individual cardiomyocytes. Recently, accurate models representing individual cells have gained popularity, enabling analysis of the electrophysiology at the micrometer level. Here, we evaluate five mathematical models to determine their computational efficiency and physiological fidelity. Our findings reveal that cell-based models introduced in recent literature offer both efficiency and precision for simulating small tissue samples (comprising thousands of cardiomyocytes). Conversely, the traditional bidomain model and its simplified counterpart, the monodomain model, are more appropriate for larger tissue masses (encompassing millions to billions of cardiomyocytes). For simulations requiring detailed parameter variations along individual cell membranes, the EMI model emerges as the only viable choice. This model distinctively accounts for the extracellular (E), membrane (M), and intracellular (I) spaces, providing a comprehensive framework for detailed studies. Nonetheless, the EMI model's applicability to large-scale tissues is limited by its substantial computational demands for subcellular resolution.

Indexed as

Models, CardiovascularMyocytes, CardiacAction PotentialsAnimalsComputer SimulationHeartHumansModels, TheoreticalMyocardium

Identifiers

PMID39043725
PMCPMC11266357

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.