| Literature DB >> 27019202 |
Mengxue Zhang1, Vanessa Tidwell1, Patricio S La Rosa2,3, James D Wilson4, Hari Eswaran5, Arye Nehorai1.
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of uterine contractions during pregnancy is especially important in predicting the onset of labor and thus in forecasting preterm deliveries. Preterm birth can cause serious health problems in newborns, as well as large financial burdens to society. Various techniques such as electromyography (EMG) and magnetomyography (MMG) have been developed to quantify uterine contractions. However, no widely accepted method to predict labor based on electromagnetic measurement is available. Therefore, developing a biophysical model of EMG and MMG could help better understand uterine contractions, interpret real measurements, and detect labor. In this work, we propose a multiscale realistic model of uterine contractions during pregnancy. At the cellular level, building on bifurcation theory, we apply generalized FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) equations that produces both plateau-type and bursting-type action potentials. At the tissue level, we introduce a random fiber orientation model applicable to an arbitrary uterine shape. We also develop an analytical expression for the propagation speed of transmembrane potential. At the organ level, a realistic volume conductor geometry model is provided based on magnetic resonance images of a pregnant woman. To simulate the measurements from the SQUID Array for Reproductive Assessment (SARA) device, we propose a sensor array model. Our model is able to reproduce the characteristics of action potentials. Additionally, we investigate the sensitivity of MMG to model configuration aspects such as volume geometry, fiber orientation, and pacemaker location. Our numerical results show that fiber orientation and pacemaker location are the key aspects that greatly affect the MMG as measured by the SARA device. We conclude that sphere is appropriate as an approximation of the volume geometry. The initial step towards validating the model against real MMG measurement is also presented. Our results show that the model is flexible to mimic the limited-propagation magnetic signature during the emergence and decay of a uterine contraction.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27019202 PMCID: PMC4809542 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Equations of uterine model in [14].
| Magnetic field |
|
| Electrical potential |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| Source current density |
|
| Transmembrane potential model |
|
| Pacemaker activity model |
|
| Boundary conditions |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Fig 1Caricature of the two types of action potentials observed in the human uterus.
(a) Plateau-type action potential. (b) Bursting-type action potential.
Fig 2Anatomically accurate uterus model.
(a) Uterus model with fixed conductivity tensor angle . (b) Uterus model with randomly sampled conductivity tensor angles.
Fig 3Realistic uterus and abdomen model.
(a) Outer surface of anatomical uterus. (b) Outer surface of SARA-based abdomen model (in meters).
Ionic current model parameters.
| Symbol | Value |
|---|---|
| 0.01[F/m2] | |
| 10[Ωm2] | |
| 10[1/S] | |
| -0.02[V] | |
| -0.04[V] | |
| -0.065[V] | |
| 7000[1/V2] | |
| 0.052[V] | |
| 0.1 | |
| 1 |
Fig 4Bifurcation diagram, produced by XPPAUT, of action potential with the variation of stimulus amplitude.
Fig 5Action potentials by applying different stimuli.
(a) Plateau-type action potential. (b) Periodic spike trains. (c) Periodic bursting-type action potential with a sinusoidal stimulus. (d) Periodic bursting-type action potential with a periodic heaviside-function stimulus.
Frequency of spike trains (spiking/second).
| 0.164 | 0.161 | 0.159 | 0.156 | 0.154 | 0.151 | 0.149 | 0.147 | 0.145 | 0.143 | |
| 0.333 | 0.323 | 0.313 | 0.302 | 0.294 | 0.286 | 0.278 | 0.270 | 0.263 | 0.256 | |
| 0.488 | 0.458 | 0.444 | 0.431 | 0.429 | 0.425 | 0.408 | 0.400 | 0.392 | 0.377 | |
| 0.606 | 0.588 | 0.571 | 0.556 | 0.541 | 0.532 | 0.526 | 0.510 | 0.502 | 0.495 | |
| 0.769 | 0.741 | 0.714 | 0.690 | 0.667 | 0.645 | 0.625 | 0.606 | 0.600 | 0.581 | |
| 0.870 | 0.847 | 0.833 | 0.800 | 0.769 | 0.741 | 0.733 | 0.720 | 0.707 | 0.693 | |
| 1.042 | 1.000 | 0.947 | 0.918 | 0.882 | 0.861 | 0.840 | 0.833 | 0.800 | 0.769 | |
| 1.200 | 1.190 | 1.087 | 1.020 | 1.000 | 0.962 | 0.926 | 0.893 | 0.861 | 0.820 | |
| 1.333 | 1.277 | 1.200 | 1.136 | 1.111 | 1.064 | 1.020 | 1.000 | 0.980 | 0.943 | |
| 1.556 | 1.429 | 1.304 | 1.250 | 1.200 | 1.154 | 1.111 | 1.071 | 1.034 | 1.020 |
Parameters for speed analysis.
| Symbol | Value |
|---|---|
| 575870[m-1] | |
| -0.056[V] | |
| 0.68[S/m] | |
| 0.518 |
Fig 6Magnetic field simulations at the abdominal surface at time instants t = 10 s, 36 s, 55 s.
(a) Simulated normal magnetic field with original configuration. (b) Simulated normal magnetic field with anatomical uterus. (c) Simulated normal magnetic field with SARA-shape abdomen. (d) Simulated normal magnetic field with random fiber orientation. (e) Simulated normal magnetic field with pacemaker set at the lateral of uterus. (f) Simulated magnetic field with SARA-shape abdomen and sensor model.
Detailed model configurations for Fig 6.
| Configuration | Shape of uterus | Shape of abdomen | Fiber orientation | Pacemaker location | Sensor model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | |||||
| Sphere | Sphere | Fixed-angle | Fundus | No | |
| FEMONUM | Sphere | Fixed-angle | Fundus | No | |
| Sphere | SARA-shape | Fixed-angle | Fundus | No | |
| Sphere | Sphere | Random | Fundus | No | |
| Sphere | Sphere | Fixed-angle | Lateral | No | |
| Sphere | SARA-shape | Fixed-angle | Fundus | Yes |
Fig 7The emergence and decay portions (1050 s–1065 s, 1135 s–1150 s) of real patient data collected by sensor 76, which is at the top of SARA device.
Conductivity values of the homogeneous and isotropic compartments.
| Symbol | Value |
|---|---|
|
| 0.2[S/ |
|
| 1.74[S/ |
|
| 0.5[S/m] |
| 5*10−15[S/m] | |
| 0.818 |
Region-specific ionic current model parameters.
| Symbol | Value within propagation area | Value outside propagation area |
|---|---|---|
| 0.01[F/m2] | 0.01[F/m2] | |
| 10[Ωm2] | 200[Ωm2] | |
| 10[1/S] | 0.09[1/S] | |
| -0.02[V] | -0.02[V] | |
| -0.04[V] | -0.04[V] | |
| -0.065[V] | -0.065[V] | |
| 7000[1/V2] | 10000[1/V2] | |
| 0.052[V] | 0.052[V] | |
| 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 1 | 1 |
Fig 8Real patient MMG data and FEM solution of our forward model at different time instants.
(a) Real patient data. (b) Simulated magnetic field at the abdominal surface. (c) Transmembrane potential at the uterus surface.