↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, February 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
OpenEP: A Cross-Platform Electroanatomic Mapping Data Format and Analysis Platform for Electrophysiology Research
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, February 2021
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2021.646023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven E. Williams, Caroline H. Roney, Adam Connolly, Iain Sim, John Whitaker, Daniel O’Hare, Irum Kotadia, Louisa O’Neill, Cesare Corrado, Martin Bishop, Steven A. Niederer, Matt Wright, Mark O’Neill, Nick W. F. Linton

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 26%
Engineering 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#740,939
of 26,213,251 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#397
of 15,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,913
of 455,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#13
of 530 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,213,251 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 530 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.