Dataset Information

OpenEP: A Cross-Platform Electroanatomic Mapping Data Format and Analysis Platform for Electrophysiology Research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electroanatomic mapping systems are used to support electrophysiology research. Data exported from these systems is stored in proprietary formats which are challenging to access and storage-space inefficient. No previous work has made available an open-source platform for parsing and interrogating this data in a standardized format. We therefore sought to develop a standardized, open-source data structure and associated computer code to store electroanatomic mapping data in a space-efficient and easily accessible manner.

Methods

A data structure was defined capturing the available anatomic and electrical data. OpenEP, implemented in MATLAB, was developed to parse and interrogate this data. Functions are provided for analysis of chamber geometry, activation mapping, conduction velocity mapping, voltage mapping, ablation sites, and electrograms as well as visualization and input/output functions. Performance benchmarking for data import and storage was performed. Data import and analysis validation was performed for chamber geometry, activation mapping, voltage mapping and ablation representation. Finally, systematic analysis of electrophysiology literature was performed to determine the suitability of OpenEP for contemporary electrophysiology research.

Results

The average time to parse clinical datasets was 400 ± 162 s per patient. OpenEP data was two orders of magnitude smaller than compressed clinical data (OpenEP: 20.5 ± 8.7 Mb, vs clinical: 1.46 ± 0.77 Gb). OpenEP-derived geometry metrics were correlated with the same clinical metrics (Area: R ² = 0.7726, P < 0.0001; Volume: R ² = 0.5179, P < 0.0001). Investigating the cause of systematic bias in these correlations revealed OpenEP to outperform the clinical platform in recovering accurate values. Both activation and voltage mapping data created with OpenEP were correlated with clinical values (mean voltage R ² = 0.8708, P < 0.001; local activation time R ² = 0.8892, P < 0.0001). OpenEP provides the processing necessary for 87 of 92 qualitatively assessed analysis techniques (95%) and 119 of 136 quantitatively assessed analysis techniques (88%) in a contemporary cohort of mapping studies.

Conclusions

We present the OpenEP framework for evaluating electroanatomic mapping data. OpenEP provides the core functionality necessary to conduct electroanatomic mapping research. We demonstrate that OpenEP is both space-efficient and accurately representative of the original data. We show that OpenEP captures the majority of data required for contemporary electroanatomic mapping-based electrophysiology research and propose a roadmap for future development.

SUBMITTER: Williams SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7952326 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Modern biomedical research aims at drawing biological conclusions from large, highly complex biological datasets. It has become common practice to make extensive use of high-throughput technologies that produce big amounts of heterogeneous data. In addition to the ever-improving accuracy, methods are getting faster and cheaper, resulting in a steadily increasing need for scalable data management and easily accessible means of analysis. We present qPortal, a platform providing users with an intuitive way to manage and analyze quantitative biological data. The backend leverages a variety of concepts and technologies, such as relational databases, data stores, data models and means of data transfer, as well as front-end solutions to give users access to data management and easy-to-use analysis options. Users are empowered to conduct their experiments from the experimental design to the visualization of their results through the platform. Here, we illustrate the feature-rich portal by simulating a biomedical study based on publically available data. We demonstrate the software's strength in supporting the entire project life cycle. The software supports the project design and registration, empowers users to do all-digital project management and finally provides means to perform analysis. We compare our approach to Galaxy, one of the most widely used scientific workflow and analysis platforms in computational biology. Application of both systems to a small case study shows the differences between a data-driven approach (qPortal) and a workflow-driven approach (Galaxy). qPortal, a one-stop-shop solution for biomedical projects offers up-to-date analysis pipelines, quality control workflows, and visualization tools. Through intensive user interactions, appropriate data models have been developed. These models build the foundation of our biological data management system and provide possibilities to annotate data, query metadata for statistics and future re-analysis on high-performance computing systems via coupling of workflow management systems. Integration of project and data management as well as workflow resources in one place present clear advantages over existing solutions.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of comorbidity and multimorbidity poses major challenges to health services around the world. Analysis of scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity is limited in the biomedical literature. This study aimed to map global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity to understand the maturity and growth of the area during the past decades.Methods and findingsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of the Web of Science. Searches were run from inception until November 8, 2016. We included research articles or reviews with no restrictions by language or publication date. Data abstraction was done by one researcher. A process of standardization was conducted by two researchers to unify different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. All potential discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of papers, citations, signatures, most prolific authors, countries, journals and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words were presented. During the period 1970-2016, 85994 papers (64.0% in 2010-2016) were published in 3500 journals. There was wide diversity in the specialty of the journals, with psychiatry (16558 papers; 19.3%), surgery (9570 papers; 11.1%), clinical neurology (9275 papers; 10.8%), and general and internal medicine (7622 papers; 8.9%) the most common. PLOS One (1223 papers; 1.4%), the Journal of Affective Disorders (1154 papers; 1.3%), the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (727 papers; 0.8%), the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (634 papers; 0.7%) and Obesity Surgery (588 papers; 0.7%) published the largest number of papers. 168 countries were involved in the production of papers. The global productivity ranking was headed by the United States (37624 papers), followed by the United Kingdom (7355 papers), Germany (6899 papers) and Canada (5706 papers). Twenty authors who published 100 or more papers were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard Medical School, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, National Taiwan Normal University and China Medical University. The 50 most cited papers ("citation classics" with at least 1000 citations) were published in 20 journals, led by JAMA Psychiatry (11 papers) and JAMA (10 papers). The most cited papers provided contributions focusing on methodological aspects (e.g. Charlson Comorbidity Index, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, APACHE prognostic system), but also important studies on chronic diseases (e.g. epidemiology of mental disorders and its correlates by the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey, Fried's frailty phenotype or the management of obesity).ConclusionsOurs is the first analysis of global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity. Scientific production in the field is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries, most notably, the United States.