4.1 Article

Estimability Analysis and Optimal Design in Dynamic Multi-scale Models of Cardiac Electrophysiology

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13253-016-0244-7

Keywords

Cardiac cell model; Identifiability; Sensitivity plot; Voltage clamp

Funding

  1. NIH/NHLBI award Optimal Design of Challenge-Response Experiments in Cardiac Electrophysiology [1R01HL118392]
  2. National Science Foundation Cyber Physical Systems Frontier Award Foundation, Compositional, Approximate, and Quantitative Reasoning for Medical Cyber-Physical Systems [1446832]
  3. Division Of Computer and Network Systems
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1446832] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present an applied approach to optimal experimental design and estimability analysis for mechanistic models of cardiac electrophysiology, by extending and improving on existing computational and graphical methods. These models are 'multi-scale' in the sense that the modeled phenomena occur over multiple spatio-temporal scales (e.g., single cell vs. whole heart). As a consequence, empirical observations of multi-scale phenomena often require multiple distinct experimental procedures. We discuss the use of conventional optimal design criteria (e.g., D-optimality) in combining experimental observations across multiple scales and multiple experimental modalities. In addition, we present an improved 'sensitivity plot'aEuroa graphical assessment of parameter estimability-that overcomes a well-known limitation in this context. These techniques are demonstrated using a working Hodgkin-Huxley cell model and three simulated experimental procedures: single-cell stimulation, action potential propagation, and voltage clamp. In light of these assessments, we discuss two model modifications that improve parameter estimability, and show that the choice of optimality criterion has a profound effect on the contribution of each experiment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available