Dataset Information

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model.

ABSTRACT: Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a vital step in using mathematical models and simulations to take decisions. The field of cardiac simulation has begun to explore and adopt UQ methods to characterize uncertainty in model inputs and how that propagates through to outputs or predictions; examples of this can be seen in the papers of this issue. In this review and perspective piece, we draw attention to an important and under-addressed source of uncertainty in our predictions-that of uncertainty in the model structure or the equations themselves. The difference between imperfect models and reality is termed model discrepancy, and we are often uncertain as to the size and consequences of this discrepancy. Here, we provide two examples of the consequences of discrepancy when calibrating models at the ion channel and action potential scales. Furthermore, we attempt to account for this discrepancy when calibrating and validating an ion channel model using different methods, based on modelling the discrepancy using Gaussian processes and autoregressive-moving-average models, then highlight the advantages and shortcomings of each approach. Finally, suggestions and lines of enquiry for future work are provided. This article is part of the theme issue 'Uncertainty quantification in cardiac and cardiovascular modelling and simulation'.

SUBMITTER: Lei CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7287333 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model.

Lei Chon Lok CL Ghosh Sanmitra S Whittaker Dominic G DG Aboelkassem Yasser Y Beattie Kylie A KA Cantwell Chris D CD Delhaas Tammo T Houston Charles C Novaes Gustavo Montes GM Panfilov Alexander V AV Pathmanathan Pras P Riabiz Marina M Dos Santos Rodrigo Weber RW Walmsley John J Worden Keith K Mirams Gary R GR Wilkinson Richard D RD

Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 20200525 2173

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) is a vital step in using mathematical models and simulations to take decisions. The field of cardiac simulation has begun to explore and adopt UQ methods to characterize uncertainty in model inputs and how that propagates through to outputs or predictions; examples of this can be seen in the papers of this issue. In this review and perspective piece, we draw attention to an important and under-addressed source of uncertainty in our predictions-that of uncertainty ...[more]

PMID: 32448065

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMicrosimulation models are mathematical models that simulate event histories for individual members of a population. They are useful for policy decisions because they simulate a large number of individuals from an idealized population, with features that change over time, and the resulting event histories can be summarized to describe key population-level outcomes. Model calibration is the process of incorporating evidence into the model. Calibrated models can be used to make predictions about population trends in disease outcomes and effectiveness of interventions, but calibration can be challenging and computationally expensive.MethodsThis paper develops a technique for sequentially updating models to take full advantage of earlier calibration results, to ultimately speed up the calibration process. A Bayesian approach to calibration is used because it combines different sources of evidence and enables uncertainty quantification which is appealing for decision-making. We develop this method in order to re-calibrate a microsimulation model for the natural history of colorectal cancer to include new targets that better inform the time from initiation of preclinical cancer to presentation with clinical cancer (sojourn time), because model exploration and validation revealed that more information was needed on sojourn time, and that the predicted percentage of patients with cancers detected via colonoscopy screening was too low.ResultsThe sequential approach to calibration was more efficient than recalibrating the model from scratch. Incorporating new information on the percentage of patients with cancers detected upon screening changed the estimated sojourn time parameters significantly, increasing the estimated mean sojourn time for cancers in the colon and rectum, providing results with more validity.ConclusionsA sequential approach to recalibration can be used to efficiently recalibrate a microsimulation model when new information becomes available that requires the original targets to be supplemented with additional targets.

Project description:The pig is commonly used as an experimental model of human heart disease, including for the study of mechanisms of arrhythmia. However, there exist differences between human and porcine cellular electrophysiology: The pig action potential (AP) has a deeper phase-1 notch, a longer duration at 50% repolarization, and higher plateau potentials than human. Ionic differences underlying the AP include larger rapid delayed-rectifier and smaller inward-rectifier K+-currents (IKr and IK1 respectively) in humans. AP steady-state rate-dependence and restitution is steeper in pigs. Porcine Ca2+ transients can have two components, unlike human. Although a reliable computational model for human ventricular myocytes exists, one for pigs is lacking. This hampers translation from results obtained in pigs to human myocardium. Here, we developed a computational model of the pig ventricular cardiomyocyte AP using experimental datasets of the relevant ionic currents, Ca2+-handling, AP shape, AP duration restitution, and inducibility of triggered activity and alternans. To properly capture porcine Ca2+ transients, we introduced a two-step process with a faster release in the t-tubular region, followed by a slower diffusion-induced release from a non t-tubular subcellular region. The pig model behavior was compared with that of a human ventricular cardiomyocyte (O'Hara-Rudy) model. The pig, but not the human model, developed early afterdepolarizations (EADs) under block of IK1, while IKr block led to EADs in the human but not in the pig model. At fast rates (pacing cycle length = 400 ms), the human cell model was more susceptible to spontaneous Ca2+ release-mediated delayed afterdepolarizations (DADs) and triggered activity than pig. Fast pacing led to alternans in human but not pig. Developing species-specific models incorporating electrophysiology and Ca2+-handling provides a tool to aid translating antiarrhythmic and arrhythmogenic assessment from the bench to the clinic.

Dataset Information

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model.

Publications

Considering discrepancy when calibrating a mechanistic electrophysiology model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets