ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating computational efforts and physiological resolution of mathematical models of cardiac tissue.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining properties of human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes using spatially resolved electromechanical metrics.The Journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Sometimes extracellular recordings fail for good reasons.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- Extracellular stimulation and ephaptic coupling of neurons in a fully coupled finite element-based Extracellular-Membrane-Intracellular (EMI) model.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Reduced gap junction coupling amplifies the effects of cardiomyocyte variability and destabilizes the heartbeat.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Electrodiffusion dynamics in the cardiomyocyte dyad at nano-scale resolution using the Poisson-Nernst-Planck (PNP) equations.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Research on noninvasive electrophysiologic imaging based on cardiac electrophysiology simulation and deep learning methods for the inverse problem.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Mathematical modelling of the train station of the heart: the atrio-ventricular node.The Journal of physiology · 2024Article
- A possible path to persistent re-entry waves at the outlet of the left pulmonary vein.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.