Abstract

Computational models of cardiac electrophysiology have a long history in basic science applications and device design and evaluation, but have significant potential for clinical applications in all areas of cardiovascular medicine, including functional imaging and mapping, drug safety evaluation, disease diagnosis, patient selection, and therapy optimisation or personalisation. For all stakeholders to be confident in model-based clinical decisions, cardiac electrophysiological (CEP) models must be demonstrated to be trustworthy and reliable. Credibility, that is, the belief in the predictive capability, of a computational model is primarily established by performing validation, in which model predictions are compared to experimental or clinical data. However, there are numerous challenges to performing validation for highly complex multi-scale physiological models such as CEP models. As a result, credibility of CEP model predictions is usually founded upon a wide range of distinct factors, including various types of validation results, underlying theory, evidence supporting model assumptions, evidence from model calibration, all at a variety of scales from ion channel to cell to organ. Consequently, it is often unclear, or a matter for debate, the extent to which a CEP model can be trusted for a given application. The aim of this article is to clarify potential rationale for the trustworthiness of CEP models by reviewing evidence that has been (or could be) presented to support their credibility. We specifically address the complexity and multi-scale nature of CEP models which makes traditional model evaluation difficult. In addition, we make explicit some of the credibility justification that we believe is implicitly embedded in the CEP modeling literature. Overall, we provide a fresh perspective to CEP model credibility, and build a depiction and categorisation of the wide-ranging body of credibility evidence for CEP models. This paper also represents a step toward the extension of model evaluation methodologies that are currently being developed by the medical device community, to physiological models.

Highlights

  • One of the most remarkable properties of the natural world is that is it can be understood using mathematical equations—a property described by Eugene Wigner as “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences.” Once the appropriate mathematical groundwork had been developed, it became possible to describe intricate and multi-faceted physicalValidation of Cardiac Electrophysiological Models phenomena using relatively simple mathematical equations, e.g., fluid flow, deformation of solid bodies, electromagnetic wave propagation, and phenomena at widely different scales from atoms to galaxies

  • We have categorized and discussed different types of evidence that could be used as a basis for the credibility of a cardiac electrophysiological (CEP) model

  • In a previous publication we advocated that engineering model assessment methodologies of verification, validation and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) could be used to improve credibility of models (Pathmanathan and Gray, 2013)

Read more

Summary

Validation and Trustworthiness of Multiscale Models of Cardiac Electrophysiology

Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States. Credibility of CEP model predictions is usually founded upon a wide range of distinct factors, including various types of validation results, underlying theory, evidence supporting model assumptions, evidence from model calibration, all at a variety of scales from ion channel to cell to organ. It is often unclear, or a matter for debate, the extent to which a CEP model can be trusted for a given application.

INTRODUCTION
WHY TRUST A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL?
Validation of Multiscale Models
Examples Cell model
CREDIBILITY OF CEP MODELS AT DIFFERENT SPATIAL SCALES
Ion Channel Models
Cell Models
DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call