Sampling methods for exploring between-subject variability in cardiac electrophysiology experiments

Between-subject and within-subject variability is ubiquitous in biology and physiology, and understanding and dealing with this is one of the biggest challenges in medicine. At the same time, it is difficult to investigate this variability by experiments alone. A recent modelling and simulation approach, known as population of models (POM), allows this exploration to take place by building a mathematical model consisting of multiple parameter sets calibrated against experimental data. However, finding such sets within a high-dimensional parameter space of complex electrophysiological models is computationally challenging. By placing the POM approach within a statistical framework, we develop a novel and efficient algorithm based on sequential Monte Carlo (SMC). We compare the SMC approach with Latin hypercube sampling (LHS), a method commonly adopted in the literature for obtaining the POM, in terms of efficiency and output variability in the presence of a drug block through an in-depth investigation via the Beeler–Reuter cardiac electrophysiological model. We show improved efficiency for SMC that produces similar responses to LHS when making out-of-sample predictions in the presence of a simulated drug block. Finally, we show the performance of our approach on a complex atrial electrophysiological model, namely the Courtemanche–Ramirez–Nattel model.

[1]  Kevin Burrage,et al.  Population of Computational Rabbit-Specific Ventricular Action Potential Models for Investigating Sources of Variability in Cellular Repolarisation , 2014, PloS one.

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

[3]  Gary R. Mirams,et al.  mRNA Expression Levels in Failing Human Hearts Predict Cellular Electrophysiological Remodeling: A Population-Based Simulation Study , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  Shirin Golchi,et al.  Sequentially Constrained Monte Carlo , 2014, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

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

[6]  A. Saltelli,et al.  A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output , 1999 .

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

[8]  E. Marder,et al.  Mapping Neural Activation onto Behavior in an Entire Animal , 2014, Science.

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

[10]  Anthony N. Pettitt,et al.  Melanoma Cell Colony Expansion Parameters Revealed by Approximate Bayesian Computation , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  D. Balding,et al.  Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. , 2002, Genetics.

[12]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[13]  Mark M. Tanaka,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo without likelihoods , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  E. Marder,et al.  Multiple models to capture the variability in biological neurons and networks , 2011, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  Jean Dickinson Gibbons,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Inference , 1972, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[16]  G. W. Beeler,et al.  Reconstruction of the action potential of ventricular myocardial fibres , 1977, The Journal of physiology.

[17]  S. Sisson,et al.  A comparative review of dimension reduction methods in approximate Bayesian computation , 2012, 1202.3819.

[18]  Xing Liu,et al.  Constructing human atrial electrophysiological models mimicking a patient-specific cell group , 2014, Computing in Cardiology 2014.

[19]  Paul Marjoram,et al.  Markov chain Monte Carlo without likelihoods , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  Michael A. West,et al.  Combined Parameter and State Estimation in Simulation-Based Filtering , 2001, Sequential Monte Carlo Methods in Practice.

[21]  C C Drovandi,et al.  Estimation of Parameters for Macroparasite Population Evolution Using Approximate Bayesian Computation , 2011, Biometrics.

[22]  M. Stein Large sample properties of simulations using latin hypercube sampling , 1987 .

[23]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[24]  Carlos Sánchez,et al.  Inter-Subject Variability in Human Atrial Action Potential in Sinus Rhythm versus Chronic Atrial Fibrillation , 2014, PloS one.

[25]  P. Moral,et al.  Sequential Monte Carlo samplers , 2002, cond-mat/0212648.

[26]  Kevin Burrage,et al.  Populations of Models, Experimental Designs and Coverage of Parameter Space by Latin Hypercube and Orthogonal Sampling , 2015, ICCS.

[27]  N. Chopin A sequential particle filter method for static models , 2002 .

[28]  Eric A. Sobie,et al.  Regression Analysis for Constraining Free Parameters in Electrophysiological Models of Cardiac Cells , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[29]  Xin Zhou,et al.  Population of human ventricular cell models calibrated with in vivo measurements unravels ionic mechanisms of cardiac alternans , 2013, Computing in Cardiology 2013.

[30]  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.