Why the study?
Increasingly complex cardiac electrophysiology models tend to become unstable and highly sensitive to parameter changes, potentially limiting their ability to predict variability, disease-induced changes, or antiarrhythmic drug effects.
Systematic variation of ionic current conductance in cardiac electrophysiology models reveals abrupt changes and inter-model differences, highlighting the need for rigorous testing of model fidelity.
Complex cardiac models risk instability in predictions; leaves open optimal complexity thresholds for reliable electrophysiology research.
Mathematical models of the electrical response of cardiac cells are used to help develop an understanding of the electrophysiological properties of cardiac cells. Increasingly complex models are being developed in an effort to enhance the biological fidelity of the models and potentially increase their ability to predict electrical dynamics observed in vivo and in vitro. However, as the models increase in size, they have a tendency to become unstable and are highly sensitive to changes in established parameters. This means that such models might be unable to accurately predict person-to-person variability, dynamical changes due to disease pathologies that alter ionic currents, or the effect of treatment with antiarrhythmics. In this paper, we test the predictive limits of two mathematical models by altering the conductance of Ca²⁺, Na⁺, and K⁺ channels. We assess changes in action potential duration (APD), rate dependence, hysteresis, dynamical behavior, and restitution as conductance is varied. We find model predictions of abrupt changes in measured quantities and differences in the predictions of the two models that might be missed in a less systematic approach. These features can be compared to experimental observations to help assess the fidelity of the models.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tuladhar et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: