Comprehensive Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis for Cardiac Action Potential Models

Recent efforts to ensure the reliability of computational model-based predictions in healthcare, such as the ASME V&V40 Standard, emphasize the importance of uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis (SA) when evaluating computational models. UQ involves empirically determining the uncertainty in model inputs—typically resulting from natural variability or measurement error—and then calculating the resultant uncertainty in model outputs. SA involves calculating how uncertainty in model outputs can be apportioned to input uncertainty. Rigorous comprehensive UQ/SA provides confidence that model-based decisions are robust to underlying uncertainties. However, comprehensive UQ/SA is not currently feasible for whole heart models, due to numerous factors including model complexity and difficulty in measuring variability in the many parameters. Here, we present a significant step to developing a framework to overcome these limitations. We: (i) developed a novel action potential (AP) model of moderate complexity (six currents, seven variables, 36 parameters); (ii) prescribed input variability for all parameters (not empirically derived); (iii) used a single “hyper-parameter” to study increasing levels of parameter uncertainty; (iv) performed UQ and SA for a range of model-derived quantities with physiological relevance; and (v) present quantitative and qualitative ways to analyze different behaviors that occur under parameter uncertainty, including “model failure”. This is the first time uncertainty in every parameter (including conductances, steady-state parameters, and time constant parameters) of every ionic current in a cardiac model has been studied. This approach allowed us to demonstrate that, for this model, the simulated AP is fully robust to low levels of parameter uncertainty — to our knowledge the first time this has been shown of any cardiac model. A range of dynamics was observed at larger parameter uncertainty (e.g., oscillatory dynamics); analysis revealed that five parameters were highly influential in these dynamics. Overall, we demonstrate feasibility of performing comprehensive UQ/SA for cardiac cell models and demonstrate how to assess robustness and overcome model failure when performing cardiac UQ analyses. The approach presented here represents an important and significant step toward the development of model-based clinical tools which are demonstrably robust to all underlying uncertainties and therefore more reliable in safety-critical decision-making.

[1]  P. Pathmanathan,et al.  Patient-Specific Cardiovascular Computational Modeling: Diversity of Personalization and Challenges , 2018, Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research.

[2]  Richard A. Gray,et al.  A Parsimonious Model of the Rabbit Action Potential Elucidates the Minimal Physiological Requirements for Alternans and Spiral Wave Breakup , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[3]  Yoram Rudy,et al.  Simulation of the Undiseased Human Cardiac Ventricular Action Potential: Model Formulation and Experimental Validation , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  Will Usher,et al.  SALib: An open-source Python library for Sensitivity Analysis , 2017, J. Open Source Softw..

[5]  José Jalife,et al.  Dynamic reciprocity of sodium and potassium channel expression in a macromolecular complex controls cardiac excitability and arrhythmia , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  C Antzelevitch,et al.  I(to) and action potential notch are smaller in left vs. right canine ventricular epicardium. , 1996, The American journal of physiology.

[7]  Daniel B. Ennis,et al.  Simulation Methods and Validation Criteria for Modeling Cardiac Ventricular Electrophysiology , 2014, PloS one.

[8]  Mark Strong,et al.  Bayesian Sensitivity Analysis of a Cardiac Cell Model Using a Gaussian Process Emulator , 2015, PloS one.

[9]  Rajanikanth Vadigepalli,et al.  Credibility, Replicability, and Reproducibility in Simulation for Biomedicine and Clinical Applications in Neuroscience , 2018, Front. Neuroinform..

[10]  Christopher C. Drovandi,et al.  Slow Recovery of Excitability Increases Ventricular Fibrillation Risk as Identified by Emulation , 2018, Front. Physiol..

[11]  Marco Viceconti,et al.  In silico clinical trials: how computer simulation will transform the biomedical industry , 2016 .

[12]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Verification of computational models of cardiac electro‐physiology , 2014, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering.

[13]  Ajay Seth,et al.  Is my model good enough? Best practices for verification and validation of musculoskeletal models and simulations of movement. , 2015, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[14]  Katherine C. Wu,et al.  Arrhythmia risk stratification of patients after myocardial infarction using personalized heart models , 2016, Nature Communications.

[15]  Saltelli Andrea,et al.  Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer , 2008 .

[16]  Min Wu,et al.  Uncertainty Quantification Reveals the Importance of Data Variability and Experimental Design Considerations for in Silico Proarrhythmia Risk Assessment , 2017, Front. Physiol..

[17]  E. Sobie Parameter sensitivity analysis in electrophysiological models using multivariable regression. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[18]  Alan Garny,et al.  A numerical guide to the solution of the bi-domain equations of cardiac electrophysiology. , 2010, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[19]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[20]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Advancing Regulatory Science With Computational Modeling for Medical Devices at the FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories , 2018, Front. Med..

[21]  J. Spear,et al.  The effects of procainamide on conduction in anisotropic canine ventricular myocardium. , 1986, Circulation.

[22]  Trine Krogh-Madsen,et al.  Global Optimization of Ventricular Myocyte Model to Multi-Variable Objective Improves Predictions of Drug-Induced Torsades de Pointes , 2017, Front. Physiol..

[23]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Uncertainty and variability in models of the cardiac action potential: Can we build trustworthy models? , 2016, Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology.

[24]  Min Wu,et al.  Assessment of an In Silico Mechanistic Model for Proarrhythmia Risk Prediction Under the CiPA Initiative , 2018, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[25]  Michael Peter Éamon Clerx,et al.  Multi−scale Modeling and Variabilityin Cardiac Cellular Electrophysiology , 2017 .

[26]  S A Niederer,et al.  Computational modelling of cardiac electrophysiology: explanation of the variability of results from different numerical solvers , 2012, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering.

[27]  Gary R. Mirams,et al.  Uncertainty and variability in computational and mathematical models of cardiac physiology , 2016, The Journal of physiology.

[28]  K. T. ten Tusscher,et al.  Alternans and spiral breakup in a human ventricular tissue model. , 2006, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[29]  C Antzelevitch,et al.  Functionally distinct sodium channels in ventricular epicardial and endocardial cells contribute to a greater sensitivity of the epicardium to electrical depression. , 2008, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[30]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  Verification and Validation in Scientific Computing , 2010 .

[31]  Amrita X. Sarkar,et al.  Exploiting mathematical models to illuminate electrophysiological variability between individuals , 2012, The Journal of physiology.

[32]  Ronald Wilders,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) HERG channel ( dys ) function revealed by dynamic action potential clamp technique , 2004 .

[33]  Jeffrey Shuren,et al.  An FDA Viewpoint on Unique Considerations for Medical-Device Clinical Trials. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[34]  Gary Gintant,et al.  Comprehensive In Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) Update from a Cardiac Safety Research Consortium / Health and Environmental Sciences Institute / FDA Meeting , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[35]  A. A. Armoundas,et al.  Altered spatial calcium regulation enhances electrical heterogeneity in the failing canine left ventricle: implications for electrical instability. , 2012, Journal of applied physiology.

[36]  Kevin Burrage,et al.  Variability in cardiac electrophysiology: Using experimentally-calibrated populations of models to move beyond the single virtual physiological human paradigm , 2016, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[37]  Marc A. Vos,et al.  Probing the Contribution of IKs to Canine Ventricular Repolarization: Key Role for &bgr;-Adrenergic Receptor Stimulation , 2003, Circulation.

[38]  N. Trayanova,et al.  Computational models in cardiology , 2018, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[39]  Charles Antzelevitch,et al.  Physiological consequences of transient outward K+ current activation during heart failure in the canine left ventricle. , 2012, Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology.

[40]  Hiroshi Ashikaga,et al.  Feasibility of image-based simulation to estimate ablation target in human ventricular arrhythmia. , 2013, Heart rhythm.

[41]  Eric Kerfoot,et al.  Verification of cardiac tissue electrophysiology simulators using an N-version benchmark , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[42]  D. Noble,et al.  A model for human ventricular tissue. , 2004, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[43]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Ensuring reliability of safety-critical clinical applications of computational cardiac models , 2013, Front. Physiol..

[44]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Validation and Trustworthiness of Multiscale Models of Cardiac Electrophysiology , 2018, Front. Physiol..

[45]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  A web-based tool for eliciting probability distributions from experts , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[46]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Applicability Analysis of Validation Evidence for Biomedical Computational Models , 2017 .

[47]  Pras Pathmanathan,et al.  Uncertainty quantification of fast sodium current steady-state inactivation for multi-scale models of cardiac electrophysiology. , 2015, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[48]  Oliver J. Britton,et al.  Human In Silico Drug Trials Demonstrate Higher Accuracy than Animal Models in Predicting Clinical Pro-Arrhythmic Cardiotoxicity , 2017, Front. Physiol..

[49]  Wouter Huberts,et al.  What is needed to make cardiovascular models suitable for clinical decision support? A viewpoint paper , 2017, J. Comput. Sci..

[50]  Stanley Nattel,et al.  Ionic mechanisms limiting cardiac repolarization reserve in humans compared to dogs , 2013, The Journal of physiology.

[51]  H Zhang,et al.  Models of cardiac tissue electrophysiology: progress, challenges and open questions. , 2011, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[52]  Gary R. Mirams,et al.  Gaussian process emulation for discontinuous response surfaces with applications for cardiac electrophysiology models , 2018, 1805.10020.

[53]  C. Antzelevitch,et al.  Characteristics of the delayed rectifier current (IKr and IKs) in canine ventricular epicardial, midmyocardial, and endocardial myocytes. A weaker IKs contributes to the longer action potential of the M cell. , 1995, Circulation research.

[54]  Eann A Patterson,et al.  A framework to establish credibility of computational models in biology. , 2017, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[55]  Joe Pitt-Francis,et al.  Bayesian Calibration, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for Predictive Modelling of Tumour Growth: A Tutorial , 2017, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology.

[56]  F. S. Costabal,et al.  Machine learning in drug development: Characterizing the effect of 30 drugs on the QT interval using Gaussian process regression, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification. , 2019, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering.

[57]  Dongping Du,et al.  Generalized polynomial chaos-based uncertainty quantification and propagation in multi-scale modeling of cardiac electrophysiology , 2018, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[58]  B. Rodríguez,et al.  Experimentally calibrated population of models predicts and explains intersubject variability in cardiac cellular electrophysiology , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[59]  Eric A Sobie,et al.  Quantification of repolarization reserve to understand interpatient variability in the response to proarrhythmic drugs: a computational analysis. , 2011, Heart rhythm.

[60]  D. Bers,et al.  A novel computational model of the human ventricular action potential and Ca transient. , 2010, Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology.

[61]  Wei Chen,et al.  Assessing the Reliability of Complex Models: Mathematical and Statistical Foundations of Verification, Validation, and Uncertainty Quantification , 2012 .

[62]  Prasanna Hariharan,et al.  Verification Benchmarks to Assess the Implementation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Based Hemolysis Prediction Models. , 2015, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[63]  F.B. Sachse,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of Cardiac Electrophysiological Models Using Polynomial Chaos , 2005, 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference.

[64]  Stanley Nattel,et al.  Sex-based transmural differences in cardiac repolarization and ionic-current properties in canine left ventricles. , 2006, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[65]  David Gavaghan,et al.  Multiscale cardiac modelling reveals the origins of notched T waves in long QT syndrome type 2 , 2014, Nature Communications.

[66]  Haibo Ni,et al.  A Heart for Diversity: Simulating Variability in Cardiac Arrhythmia Research , 2018, Front. Physiol..