Advertisement

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 777–794 | Cite as

Complexity reduction in human atrial modeling using extended Kalman filter

  • Celal AlagozEmail author
  • Saran Phatharodom
  • Allon Guez
Original article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Human atrial tissue electrophysiology is modeled upon biophysical details obtained from cellular level measurements. Data collected for this purpose typically represent a unique state of the tissue. As reproducing dynamic cases such as subject-varied and/or disorder-varied electrophysiological properties is in question, such complex models are typically hard to use. Hence, there is a need for simpler yet biophysically accurate and mathematically tractable models to be used for case-specific reproductions and simulations. In this study, a scheme for parameter estimation of a phenomenological cardiac model to match a targeted behavior generated from a complex model is used. Specifically, an algorithm incorporating extended Kalman filter (EKF) into the scheme is proposed. Its performance is then compared to that of particle swarm optimization (PSO) and sequential quadratic programming (SQP), algorithms that have been widely used for parameter optimization. Both robustness and adaptability performance of the algorithms are tested through various designs. For this, reproducing action potential (AP) waveforms of varying remodeling states of atrial fibrillation (AF) at different stimulus protocols was targeted. Also, randomly generated initial parameter sets are included in the tests. In addition, AP duration (APD) restitution curve (RC) is used for a multiscale evaluation of fitting performance. Finally, wavefront propagation on 2D of a selected AF remodeling state using parameter solutions from each of the algorithms is simulated for a qualitative evaluation. In general, PSO yielded superior performances than EKF and SQP with respect to fitting AP waveforms. Considering both AP and APD RC, however, EKF yielded the best accuracies. Also, more accurate spiral wave reentry is obtained with EKF. Overall, EKF algorithm yielded the best performance in robustness and adaptability.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Parameter estimation Human atrial electrophysiology models Extended Kalman filter Action potential Cardiac electrical restitution Wavefront propagation 

References

  1. 1.
    Akhavan Niaki F, Mears L (2017) A probabilistic-based study on fused direct and indirect methods for tracking tool flank wear of rene-108, nickel-based alloy. In: Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers, part b: journal of engineering manufacture p 0954405416683432Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alagoz C, Phatharodom S, Guez A (2015) Parameter estimation of a phenomenological cardiac model based on a biophysically detailed model of human atria: a method for model complexity reduction using extended Kalman filter. In: 2015 6th international conference on modeling, simulation, and applied optimization (ICMSAO), IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arora S, Singh S (2017) An effective hybrid butterfly optimization algorithm with artificial bee colony for numerical optimization. IJIMAI 4(4):14–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beeler GW, Reuter H (1977) Reconstruction of the action potential of ventricular myocardial fibres. J Physiol 268(1):177–210Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berrier KL, Sorensen DC, Khoury DS (2004) Solving the inverse problem of electrocardiography using a duncan and horn formulation of the kalman filter. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51(3):507–515Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boutjdir M, Le Heuzey J, Lavergne T, Chauvaud S, Guize L, Carpentier A, Peronneau P (1986) Inhomogeneity of cellular refractoriness in human atrium: factor of arrhythmia? Pacing and clinical electrophysiology: PACE 9(6 Pt 2):1095Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bueno-Orovio A, Cherry EM, Fenton FH (2008) Minimal model for human ventricular action potentials in tissue. J Theor Biol 253(3):544–560Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen F, Chu A, Yang X, Lei Y, Chu J (2012) Identification of the parameters of the beeler–reuter ionic equation with a partially perturbed particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59(12):3412–3421Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherry EM, Ehrlich JR, Nattel S, Fenton FH (2007) Pulmonary vein reentry—properties and size matter: insights from a computational analysis. Heart Rhythm 4(12):1553–1562Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clerc M, Kennedy J (2002) The particle swarm-explosion, stability, and convergence in a multidimensional complex space. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(1):58–73Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Courtemanche M, Ramirez RJ, Nattel S (1998) Ionic mechanisms underlying human atrial action potential properties: insights from a mathematical model. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 275(1):H301–H321Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Courtemanche M, Ramirez RJ, Nattel S (1999) Ionic targets for drug therapy and atrial fibrillation-induced electrical remodeling: insights from a mathematical model. Cardiovasc Res 42(2):477–489Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dokos S, Lovell NH (2004) Parameter estimation in cardiac ionic models. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 85 (2):407–431Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: 1995. MHS’95., Proceedings of the Sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, IEEE, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feinberg WM, Blackshear JL, Laupacis A, Kronmal R, Hart RG (1995) Prevalence, age distribution, and gender of patients with atrial fibrillation: analysis and implications. Arch Intern Med 155(5):469–473Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fenton F, Karma A (1998) Vortex dynamics in three-dimensional continuous myocardium with fiber rotation: filament instability and fibrillation. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 8(1):20–47Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fink M, Noble D (2009) Markov models for ion channels: versatility versus identifiability and speed. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical. Phys Eng Sci 367(1896):2161–2179Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fletcher R (2013) Practical methods of optimization. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman AM, Oliver RA, Henriquez CS, Wolf PD (2005) A membrane model of electrically remodelled atrial myocardium derived from in vivo measurements. EP Europace 7(s2):S135–S145Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groenendaal W, Ortega FA, Kherlopian AR, Zygmunt AC, Krogh-Madsen T, Christini DJ (2015) Cell-specific cardiac electrophysiology models. PLoS Comput Biol 11(4):e1004,242Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Guo T, Al Abed A, Lovell NH, Dokos S (2013) Optimisation of a generic ionic model of cardiac myocyte electrical activity. Comput Math Methods Med 2013:20.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/706195
  23. 23.
    Hobbs F, Fitzmaurice D, Mant J, Murray E, Jowett S, Bryan S, Raftery J, Davies M, Lip G (2005) A randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study of systematic screening (targeted and total population screening) versus routine practice for the detection of atrial fibrillation in people aged 65 and over. the safe study. Health Technol Assess (Winch Eng) 9(40):iiiGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF (1952) A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol 117(4):500–544Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jiang K, Geng P, Meng F, Zhang H (2016) An extended kalman filter for input estimations in diesel-engine selective catalytic reduction applications. Neurocomputing 171:569–575Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J Fluids Eng 82(1):35–45Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kennedy J (2011) Particle swarm optimization. In: Encyclopedia of machine learning, Springer, pp 760–766Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kopp RE, Orford RJ (1963) Linear regression applied to system identification for adaptive control systems. AIA J 1(10):2300–2306Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krogh-Madsen T, Abbott GW, Christini DJ (2012) Effects of electrical and structural remodeling on atrial fibrillation maintenance: a simulation study. PLoS Comput Biol 8(2):e1002,390Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kumar DD, Narasimhan S, Bhatt N (2016) Diagnosis and rectification of model-process mismatch in chemical reaction systems. In: Control conference (ICC), 2016 indian, IEEE, pp 140–145Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu F, Walmsley J, Burrage K (2011) Parameter estimation for a phenomenological model of the cardiac action potential. ANZIAM Journal 52:482–499Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mase M (2017) Application of computer models on atrial fibrillation research. Minerva Cardioangiol 65 (4):398–419Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Metia S, Oduro SD, Duc HN, Ha Q (2016) Inverse air-pollutant emission and prediction using extended fractional kalman filtering. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 9 (5):2051–2063Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meza J, Espitia H, Montenegro C, Giménez E, González-Crespo R (2017) Movpso: Vortex multi-objective particle swarm optimization. Appl Soft Comput 52:1042–1057Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mitchell CC, Schaeffer DG (2003) A two-current model for the dynamics of cardiac membrane. Bull Math Biol 65(5):767–793Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Niaki FA, Michel M, Mears L (2016) State of health monitoring in machining: Extended Kalman filter for tool wear assessment in turning of in718 hard-to-machine alloy. J Manuf Process 24:361–369Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nygren A, Fiset C, Firek L, Clark J, Lindblad D, Clark R, Giles W (1998) Mathematical model of an adult human atrial cell the role of k+ currents in repolarization. Circ Res 82(1):63–81Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Oliver RA, Krassowska W (2005) Reproducing cardiac restitution properties using the fenton–karma membrane model. Ann Biomed Eng 33(7):907–911Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ranucci M, Porta A, Bari V, Pistuddi V, La Rovere MT (2017) Baroreflex sensitivity and outcomes following coronary surgery. PloS One 12(4):e0175,008Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rhodes IB (1971) A tutorial introduction to estimation and filtering. IEEE Trans Autom Control 16(6):688–706Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ruan X, Ding M, Gong D, Qiao J (2007) On-line adaptive control for inverted pendulum balancing based on feedback-error-learning. Neurocomputing 70(4):770–776Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schittkowski K (1986) Nlpql: a fortran subroutine solving constrained nonlinear programming problems. Ann Oper Res 5(1): 485–500Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Seemann G, Bustamante PC, Ponto S, Wilhelms M, Scholz EP, Dössel O. (2010) Atrial fibrillation-based electrical remodeling in a computer model of the human atrium. Comput Cardiol 37: 417–420Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shi Y, Eberhart R (1998) A modified particle swarm optimizer. In: 1998. IEEE world congress on computational intelligence., the 1998 IEEE international conference on Evolutionary computation proceedings, IEEE, pp 69–73Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Simon D (2010) Kalman filtering with state constraints: a survey of linear and nonlinear algorithms. IET Control Theory Appl 4(8):1303–1318Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sobie EA (2009) Parameter sensitivity analysis in electrophysiological models using multivariable regression. Biophys J 96(4):1264–1274Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sum J, Leung CS, Young GH, Kan WK (1999) On the kalman filtering method in neural network training and pruning. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 10(1):161–166Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Syed Z, Vigmond E, Nattel S, Leon L (2005) Atrial cell action potential parameter fitting using genetic algorithms. Med Biol Eng Comput 43(5):561–571Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trayanova NA (2014) Mathematical approaches to understanding and imaging atrial fibrillation: significance for mechanisms and management. Circ Res 114(9):1516–1531Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zhou Q, Zygmunt AC, Cordeiro JM, Siso-Nadal F, Miller RE, Buzzard GT, Fox JJ (2009) Identification of i kr kinetics and drug binding in native myocytes. Ann Biomed Eng 37(7):1294– 1309Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations