Key result
Patient-specific computational modeling of 24 ventricular models demonstrated that discretization error varies across patients, indicating that single-patient mesh resolution studies may be insufficient.
Why the study?
Methods to evaluate the credibility of modeling and simulation have focused on medical devices or generic patient models, leaving how to assess patient-specific models largely unexplored.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Provides a framework for developers to assess the credibility of patient-specific cardiac computational models using established standards.
Reliable and robust simulation of individual patients using patient-specific models (PSMs) is one of the next frontiers for modeling and simulation (M&S) in healthcare. PSMs, which form the basis of digital twins, can be employed as clinical tools to, for example, assess disease state, predict response to therapy, or optimize therapy. They may also be used to construct virtual cohorts of patients, for in silico evaluation of medical product safety and/or performance. Methods and frameworks have recently been proposed for evaluating the credibility of M&S in healthcare applications. However, such efforts have generally been motivated by models of medical devices or generic patient models; how best to evaluate the credibility of PSMs has largely been unexplored. The aim of this paper is to understand and demonstrate the credibility assessment process for PSMs using patient-specific cardiac electrophysiological (EP) modeling as an exemplar. We first review approaches used to generate cardiac PSMs and consider how verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) apply to cardiac PSMs. Next, we execute two simulation studies using a publicly available virtual cohort of 24 patient-specific ventricular models, the first a multi-patient verification study, the second investigating the impact of uncertainty in personalized and non-personalized inputs in a virtual cohort. We then use the findings from our analyses to identify how important characteristics of PSMs can be considered when assessing credibility with the approach of the ASME V&V40 Standard, accounting for PSM concepts such as inter- and intra-user variability, multi-patient and "every-patient" error estimation, uncertainty quantification in personalized vs non-personalized inputs, clinical validation, and others. The results of this paper will be useful to developers of cardiac and other medical image based PSMs, when assessing PSM credibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Galappaththige et al. (2022) studied Cardiac electrophysiological modeling (n=24). Patient-specific computational modeling was evaluated on Discretization error in predicted global activation times and simulated ECGs. Patient-specific computational modeling of 24 ventricular models demonstrated that discretization error varies across patients, indicating that single-patient mesh resolution studies may be insufficient.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: