4.7 Article

Identifying Model Inaccuracies and Solution Uncertainties in Noninvasive Activation-Based Imaging of Cardiac Excitation Using Convex Relaxation

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 902-912

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2014.2297952

Keywords

Activation time imaging; biomedical imaging; biomedical signal processing; convex relaxation; electrocardiography (ECG); inverse problems

Funding

  1. National Center for Research Resources from the National Institutes of Health [5P41RR012553-14]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences from the National Institutes of Health [8 P41 GM103545-14]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Noninvasive imaging of cardiac electrical function has begun to move towards clinical adoption. Here, we consider one common formulation of the problem, in which the goal is to estimate the spatial distribution of electrical activation times during a cardiac cycle. We address the challenge of understanding the robustness and uncertainty of solutions to this formulation. This formulation poses a nonconvex, nonlinear least squares optimization problem. We show that it can be relaxed to be convex, at the cost of some degree of physiological realism of the solution set, and that this relaxation can be used as a framework to study model inaccuracy and solution uncertainty. We present two examples, one using data from a healthy human subject and the other synthesized with the ECGSIM software package. In the first case, we consider uncertainty in the initial guess and regularization parameter. In the second case, we mimic the presence of an ischemic zone in the heart in a way which violates a model assumption. We show that the convex relaxation allows understanding of spatial distribution of parameter sensitivity in the first case, and identification of model violation in the second.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available