The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2605.27732 · v1 · pith:OFP2RGDL · submitted 2026-05-26 · physics.med-ph

Weight-Guided Constraints for Body Model and Lead Selection in Pediatric CIED MRI Safety Simulations

Safa Hameed , Kaylee Henry , Fuchang Jiang , Bhumi Bhusal , Halley Dillenbeck , Lindsey Gakenheimer-Smith , Gregory Webster , Laleh Golestanirad This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith2026-06-29 13:54 UTCgrok-4.3pith:OFP2RGDLopen to challenge →

classification physics.med-ph
keywords pediatric CIEDMRI safetyepicardial leadsendocardial leadsweight-based constraintscomputational modelingRF-induced heatinglead length
0
0 comments X

The pith

Weight alone discriminates epicardial from endocardial lead placement in pediatric CIED patients with AUC 0.90 and sets new thresholds for MRI safety simulations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reviews 302 CIED implant surgeries in 281 children to extract data-driven rules that pair body models with realistic lead setups when simulating MRI heating risks. Weight by itself separated the two lead implantation approaches with an area under the curve of 0.90, and age or height added no further value. The data place the probabilistic switch at 44 kg with a wide overlap zone from 21 to 66 kg where both approaches occur, while lead length also follows weight cutoffs such as 25 cm only below 6 kg. These observations produce a three-tier selection framework that replaces arbitrary model choices with patterns actually seen in surgery.

Core claim

Retrospective analysis of 302 pediatric CIED surgeries shows that patient weight alone discriminates epicardial from endocardial lead implantation with AUC 0.90, with crossover at 44 kg and transition zone 21-66 kg; lead length is likewise weight-constrained, producing a three-tier framework that constrains MRI safety simulations to clinically observed body-lead combinations.

What carries the argument

The weight-based probabilistic selection metric that maps patient weight to epicardial versus endocardial lead type and to lead length categories for simulation design.

If this is right

  • Simulations for patients below 21 kg can be limited to epicardial lead configurations only.
  • Both epicardial and endocardial lead placements must be modeled for patients in the 21-66 kg range.
  • Lead length selections in body models should follow the observed weight thresholds, such as restricting 25 cm leads to patients below 6 kg.
  • MRI heating predictions gain clinical relevance by using weight-thresholded combinations rather than the 10-15 kg literature thresholds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The weight rules may allow simulations to exclude many unrealistic lead-body pairings that previously inflated estimated heating risks.
  • The same single-parameter approach could be tested for guiding simulations of other pediatric device interactions such as CT or ultrasound.
  • Periodic re-analysis of surgical registries could update the crossover weight if practice patterns shift over time.

Load-bearing premise

The distribution of lead types, lengths, and implantation approaches observed in this retrospective cohort is representative of current pediatric CIED surgical practice outside the study institution(s).

What would settle it

A new multi-center review of pediatric CIED surgeries that shows weight cutoffs differing substantially from 21-66 kg or no usable correlation between weight and lead type would falsify the proposed three-tier constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27732 by Bhumi Bhusal, Fuchang Jiang, Gregory Webster, Halley Dillenbeck, Kaylee Henry, Laleh Golestanirad, Lindsey Gakenheimer-Smith, Safa Hameed.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pediatric cohort anthropometrics stratified by lead type (surgery-level). Histograms show distributions of (A) age, (B) weight, and (C) height at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Weight best discriminates epicardial versus endocardial approach for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Lead-length distribution by weight category and lead type (instance-level, n = 509). Cells show percentage of leads within each weight bin. Epicardial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pediatric patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) face limited MRI access due to RF-induced heating, and computational modeling is increasingly used to characterize this risk. The validity of these simulations, however, depends on pairing body models with clinically realistic lead configurations, guidance that is currently lacking. We retrospectively analyzed 302 CIED surgeries in 281 pediatric patients to derive weight-based constraints for simulation design. Weight alone discriminated epicardial from endocardial lead implantation with AUC = 0.90, and adding age and height yielded no improvement, supporting weight as a sufficient single-parameter selection metric. The probabilistic crossover between approaches occurred at 44 kg, substantially higher than the 10 to 15 kg threshold commonly cited in the literature, with a broad transition zone of 21 to 66 kg in which both lead types were routinely used. Lead length was likewise weight-constrained: only 25 cm leads were observed in patients below 6 kg, and leads of 45 cm or longer were uncommon below 50 kg. These findings yield a three-tier framework, with epicardial-only configurations below 21 kg, dual configurations within 21 to 66 kg, and weight-thresholded lead lengths throughout, enabling MRI safety simulations to focus on clinically realizable anatomy and device combinations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a retrospective analysis of 302 CIED implantation surgeries in 281 pediatric patients. Weight alone discriminated epicardial from endocardial lead placement with AUC = 0.90; adding age or height yielded no improvement. The crossover occurred at 44 kg with a 21–66 kg transition zone in which both approaches were used. Lead length was also weight-dependent (only 25 cm leads below 6 kg; ≥45 cm leads uncommon below 50 kg). These observations are synthesized into a three-tier weight-based framework intended to constrain body-model and lead selection in pediatric CIED MRI safety simulations.

Significance. If the observed distributions prove representative, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable empirical thresholds that can directly inform simulation design, replacing ad-hoc assumptions with data-derived constraints. The single-parameter sufficiency of weight and the explicit reporting of AUC, crossover, and transition zone are strengths that allow external testing.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The central claim that the derived three-tier framework should guide MRI safety simulations assumes the single-institution cohort distributions are representative of broader pediatric CIED practice. No external validation, multi-center comparison, or discussion of institutional variation in surgical preferences is provided, rendering the generalizability assumption load-bearing for the stated purpose of the constraints.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: No statistical methods, confidence intervals, handling of missing data, or potential center-specific biases are described, even though the AUC, crossover, and transition zone are presented as quantitative results.
  2. [Results] Results: The manuscript should cite the specific literature sources for the “10 to 15 kg threshold commonly cited” against which the 44 kg crossover is contrasted.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the generalizability issue. We agree this is a substantive limitation of the single-center retrospective design and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Discussion] Abstract and Discussion: The central claim that the derived three-tier framework should guide MRI safety simulations assumes the single-institution cohort distributions are representative of broader pediatric CIED practice. No external validation, multi-center comparison, or discussion of institutional variation in surgical preferences is provided, rendering the generalizability assumption load-bearing for the stated purpose of the constraints.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the analysis derives from a single high-volume pediatric institution and provides no external validation, multi-center data, or explicit discussion of inter-institutional surgical preference variation. This is a genuine limitation of the retrospective design; the 302-surgery cohort is the largest reported series on this topic but cannot by itself establish representativeness. The weight-based discrimination (AUC 0.90) and the 21–66 kg transition zone remain empirically grounded observations that can serve as testable hypotheses for other centers. We will revise both the Abstract and Discussion to state the single-center origin explicitly, note the absence of external validation, and frame the three-tier framework as a data-derived starting point rather than a universally prescriptive standard, while calling for multi-center confirmation. No data on institutional variation exist in our records, so we cannot quantify it. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • External validation, multi-center comparison, or quantitative assessment of institutional variation in lead-selection practices cannot be supplied from the existing single-institution retrospective dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical retrospective cohort analysis with direct statistical summaries

full rationale

The paper reports a retrospective review of 302 CIED surgeries yielding empirical statistics (AUC=0.90 for weight-based discrimination, 44 kg crossover, 21-66 kg transition zone, lead-length thresholds by weight). These are direct observations and descriptive thresholds from the data; no equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are generated that reduce to the same inputs by construction. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps. The derivation chain is a straightforward data summary and is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of a single (or limited) institutional retrospective dataset and on the assumption that weight is a sufficient single-parameter proxy; no free parameters are introduced beyond standard statistical summaries of the observed data.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The retrospective surgical records accurately capture lead type and length without systematic misclassification or missing-data bias.
    All thresholds are derived directly from the extracted records; no external validation cohort is mentioned.
  • domain assumption The observed weight distributions generalize beyond the study population to current pediatric CIED practice.
    The three-tier framework is presented as a general simulation-design tool without multi-center confirmation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5797 in / 1556 out tokens · 42656 ms · 2026-06-29T13:54:08.601075+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: In vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation at 1.5-tesla,

    F. G. Shellock, L. Fischer, and D. S. Fieno, “Cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: In vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation at 1.5-tesla,”J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 21–31, 2007, doi: 10.1080/10976640600897237

    work page doi:10.1080/10976640600897237 2007

  2. [2]

    T. Sommer et al., “Strategy for safe performance of extrathoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in the presence of cardiac pacemakers in non-pacemaker-dependent patients: A prospective study with 115 examinations,”Circulation, vol. 114, no. 12, pp. 1285–1292, Sep. 2006, doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.597013

    work page doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.597013 2006

  3. [3]

    Measuring RF-induced currents inside implants: Impact of device configuration on MRI safety of cardiac pacemaker leads,

    P. Nordbeck et al., “Measuring RF-induced currents inside implants: Impact of device configuration on MRI safety of cardiac pacemaker leads,”Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 570–578, 2009, doi: 10.1002/mrm.21881

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.21881 2009

  4. [4]

    Systematic review of MRI safety literature in relation to radiofrequency thermal injury prevention,

    C. Baker, B. Nugent, D. Grainger, J. Hewis, and C. Malamateniou, “Systematic review of MRI safety literature in relation to radiofrequency thermal injury prevention,”J. Med. Radiat. Sci., vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 445– 460, 2024, doi: 10.1002/jmrs.800

    work page doi:10.1002/jmrs.800 2024

  5. [5]

    Effect of device configuration and patient’s body composition on the RF heating and nonsusceptibility artifact of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,

    B. Bhusal et al., “Effect of device configuration and patient’s body composition on the RF heating and nonsusceptibility artifact of deep brain stimulation implants during MRI at 1.5T and 3T,”J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 599–610, 2021, doi: 10.1002/jmri.27346

    work page doi:10.1002/jmri.27346 2021

  6. [6]

    Modifying the trajectory of epicardial leads can sub- stantially reduce MRI-induced RF heating in pediatric patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device at 1.5T,

    F. Jiang et al., “Modifying the trajectory of epicardial leads can sub- stantially reduce MRI-induced RF heating in pediatric patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device at 1.5T,”Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 2510–2523, 2023, doi: 10.1002/mrm.29776

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29776 2023

  7. [7]

    Age matters: A comparative study of RF heating of epicardial and endocardial electronic devices in pediatric and adult phantoms during cardiothoracic MRI,

    F. Jiang et al., “Age matters: A comparative study of RF heating of epicardial and endocardial electronic devices in pediatric and adult phantoms during cardiothoracic MRI,”Diagnostics, vol. 13, no. 17, p. 2847, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13172847

    work page doi:10.3390/diagnostics13172847 2023

  8. [8]

    Effect of surgical modification of deep brain stimulation lead trajectories on radiofrequency heating during MRI at 3T: From phantom experiments to clinical implementation,

    J. Vu, B. Bhusal, J. M. Rosenow, J. Pilitsis, and L. Golestanirad, “Effect of surgical modification of deep brain stimulation lead trajectories on radiofrequency heating during MRI at 3T: From phantom experiments to clinical implementation,”J. Neurosurg., vol. 140, no. 5, pp. 1459–1470, 2023, doi: 10.3171/2023.3.JNS222615

    work page doi:10.3171/2023.3.jns222615 2023

  9. [9]

    Complexity of MRI-induced heating on metallic leads: Experimental measurements of 374 configurations,

    E. Mattei et al., “Complexity of MRI-induced heating on metallic leads: Experimental measurements of 374 configurations,”Biomed. Eng. OnLine, vol. 7, p. 11, Mar. 2008, doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-7-11

    work page doi:10.1186/1475-925x-7-11 2008

  10. [10]

    Impact of imaging landmark on the risk of MRI- related heating near implanted medical devices like cardiac pacemaker leads,

    P. Nordbeck et al., “Impact of imaging landmark on the risk of MRI- related heating near implanted medical devices like cardiac pacemaker leads,”Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 44–50, 2011, doi: 10.1002/mrm.22592

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.22592 2011

  11. [11]

    Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with abandoned leads,

    R. D. Schaller, T. Brunker, M. P. Riley, F. E. Marchlinski, S. Nazarian, and H. Litt, “Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with abandoned leads,”JAMA Car- diol., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 549–556, May 2021, doi: 10.1001/jamacar- dio.2020.7572

    work page doi:10.1001/jamacar- 2021

  12. [12]

    2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients,

    M. J. Shah et al., “2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients,”Cardiol. Young, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1738– 1769, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1017/S1047951121003413

    work page doi:10.1017/s1047951121003413 2021

  13. [13]

    2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices,

    J. H. Indik et al., “2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices,”Heart Rhythm, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. e97– e153, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.04.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.04.025 2017

  14. [14]

    Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in paediatric congenital heart disease patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices,

    O. B. Aboyewa et al., “Cumulative radiation dose from medical imaging in paediatric congenital heart disease patients with epicardial cardiac implantable electronic devices,”Eur. Heart J. Imaging Methods Pract., vol. 2, no. 1, p. qyae060, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1093/ehjimp/qyae060

    work page doi:10.1093/ehjimp/qyae060 2024

  15. [15]

    Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads,

    B. T. Nguyen, B. Bhusal, A. A. Rahsepar, K. Fawcett, S. Lin, D. S. Marks, R. Passman, D. Nieto, R. Niemzcura, and L. Golestani- rad, “Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads,”Magn. Reson. Med., vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 2464–2480, May 2022, doi: 10.1002/mrm.29125

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.29125 2022

  16. [16]

    Comparative assessment of RF-induced heating in epicardial implantable electronic devices during 0.55 T and 1.5 T MRI: Effects of full systems vs. abandoned leads,

    B. Bhusal, P. P. Sanpitak, F. Jiang, G. Webster, J. Richardson, N. Seiberlich, and L. Golestanirad, “Comparative assessment of RF-induced heating in epicardial implantable electronic devices during 0.55 T and 1.5 T MRI: Effects of full systems vs. abandoned leads,” inProc. IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., Signal Power Integr. (EMC+SIPI), pp. 198–203,...

    work page doi:10.1109/emcsipi64165.2025.11081131 2025

  17. [17]

    The effect of simulation strategies on prediction of power deposition in the tissue around elec- tronic implants during magnetic resonance imaging,

    B. T. Nguyen, J. Pilitsis, and L. Golestanirad, “The effect of simulation strategies on prediction of power deposition in the tissue around elec- tronic implants during magnetic resonance imaging,”Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 65, no. 18, p. 185007, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/abac9f

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/abac9f 2020

  18. [18]

    Transvenous pacing in children weighing less than 10 kilograms,

    R. Robledo-Nolasco, M. Ortiz-Avalos, G. Rodriguez-Diez, et al., “Transvenous pacing in children weighing less than 10 kilograms,” Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol., vol. 32, Suppl. 1, pp. S177–S181, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.02276.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.02276.x 2009

  19. [19]

    Twenty-seven years experience with transvenous pacemaker implanta- tion in children weighing less than 10 kg,

    L. Konta, M. H. Chubb, J. Bostock, J. Rogers, and E. Rosenthal, “Twenty-seven years experience with transvenous pacemaker implanta- tion in children weighing less than 10 kg,”Circ. Arrhythm. Electrophys- iol., vol. 9, no. 2, p. e003422, 2016, doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.115.003422

    work page doi:10.1161/circep.115.003422 2016

  20. [20]

    New guidelines of pediatric cardiac implantable electronic devices: What is changing in clinical practice?

    M. S. Silvetti et al., “New guidelines of pediatric cardiac implantable electronic devices: What is changing in clinical practice?”J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis., vol. 11, no. 4, p. 99, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.3390/jcdd11040099

    work page doi:10.3390/jcdd11040099 2024

  21. [21]

    Expanding the reach of pediatric transcatheter pacing,

    B. H. Kanter and D. A. Silka, “Expanding the reach of pediatric transcatheter pacing,”J. Innov. Card. Rhythm Manag., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 4487–4492, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.19102/icrm.2021.120408

    work page doi:10.19102/icrm.2021.120408 2021