Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
July 21, 2020Frontiers in PhysiologyOpen Access

Algorithm 4 + DBSCAN achieved the best classification performance (score 0.831) with an acceptable processing time (2.0 ± 0.3 s).

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Recent investigations failed to reproduce positive rotor-guided ablation outcomes in persistent AF, and algorithms for automated phase singularity identification differ.

Which automated phase singularity detection algorithm provides the best accuracy and speed compared to manual annotation in human atrial fibrillation?

Comparison

Four automated phase singularity detection techniques vs manual annotation

Design

Algorithm validation study with 10-fold cross-validation

Authors

XLXin LiTATiago P. AlmeidaNDNawshin Dastagir

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

May accelerate automated PS mapping in AF; leaves open prospective clinical validation before adoption.

Structured PICO

Which automated phase singularity detection algorithm provides the best accuracy and speed compared to manual annotation in human atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
Human atrial fibrillation phase mapping data
I
Intervention
Automated phase singularity (PS) detection algorithms (Algorithms 1-4, with or without DBSCAN)
C
Comparator
Manual annotation
O
Outcome
Classification performance (score) and processing timesurrogate

Algorithm 4 combined with DBSCAN provides optimal accuracy and speed for automated phase singularity detection in 3D triangulated meshes during atrial fibrillation, potentially standardizing driver identification.

Cite This Study

Li et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a011c5ae4618ba4162dd009https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00869
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share