Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 470

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Monodomain and Bidomain Reaction-Diffusion Models for Action Potential Propagation in the Human Heart

Open access
Potse, M., Dube, B., Richer, J., Vinet, A., Gulrajani, R.M.·2006·IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
DOI 10.1109/tbme.2006.880875
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A bidomain reaction-diffusion model of the human heart was developed, and potentials resulting from normal depolarization and repolarization were compared with results from a compatible monodomain model. Comparisons were made for an empty isolated heart and for a heart with fluid-filled ventricles. Both sinus rhythm and ectopic activation were simulated. The bidomain model took 2 days on 32 processors to simulate a complete cardiac cycle. Differences between monodomain and bidomain results were extremely small, even for the extracellular potentials, which in case of the monodomain model were computed with a high-resolution forward model. Propagation of activation was 2% faster in the bidomain model than in the monodomain model. Electrograms computed with monodomain and bidomain models were visually indistinguishable. We conclude that, in the absence of applied currents, propagating action potentials on the scale of a human heart can be studied with a monodomain model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tbme.2006.880875

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 470

Metadata

Authors
Potse, M., Dube, B., Richer, J., Vinet, A., & Gulrajani, R. M.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2006-12
Volume
53
Issue
12
Pages
2425-2435
ISSN
  • 0018-9294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2531
DOI
10.1109/tbme.2006.880875
OpenAlex
W2098355081
Cited by
470
References
46
FWCI
13.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.