Which automated phase singularity detection algorithm provides the best accuracy and speed compared to manual annotation in human atrial fibrillation?
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.
PURPOSE: Recent investigations failed to reproduce the positive rotor-guided ablation outcomes shown by initial studies for treating persistent atrial fibrillation (persAF). Phase singularity (PS) is an important feature for AF driver detection, but algorithms for automated PS identification differ. We aim to investigate the performance of four different techniques for automated PS detection. METHODS: score and 10-fold cross-validation compared with manual annotation. Local clustering with density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) was proposed to improve algorithms 3 and 4. RESULTS: scores for algorithms 1, 2, 3, 3 + DBSCAN, 4 and 4 + DBSCAN were 0.547, 0.645, 0.742, 0.828, 0.656, and 0.831. Algorithm 4 + DBSCAN achieved the best classification performance with acceptable processing time (2.0 ± 0.3 s). CONCLUSION: AF driver identification is dependent on the PS detection algorithms and their parameters, which could explain some of the inconsistencies in rotor-guided ablation outcomes in different studies. For 3D triangulated meshes, algorithm 4 + DBSCAN with optimal parameters was the best solution for real-time, automated PS detection due to accuracy and speed. Similarly, algorithm 3 + DBSCAN with optimal parameters is preferred for uniform 2D meshes. Such algorithms - and parameters - should be preferred in future clinical studies for identifying AF drivers and minimizing methodological heterogeneities. This would facilitate comparisons in rotor-guided ablation outcomes in future works.
Li et al. (Tue,) studied this question.