Geometry Quantification of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that the maximum transverse diameter of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and expansion rate are not entirely reliable indicators of rupture potential. We hypothesize that aneurysm morphology and wall thickness can be quantified in a systematic approach leading to accurate differentiation of the geometric characteristics of aneurysm population subsets. A non-invasive, image-based evaluation of AAA shape was implemented on a retrospective study of sixty-six subjects who underwent elective repair and twenty-eight subjects who suffered AAA rupture within 1 month of their last pre-operative follow-up. The contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scans of these patients were used to generate three-dimensional models from the segmented images. Twenty-eight geometry-based indices were calculated to characterize the size and shape of the AAA sac, and regional variations in wall thickness were estimated based on a novel segmentation algorithm. A multivariate analysis of variance using a maximum AAA diameter of 5.5 cm as a factor was performed for all indices as dependent variables, for the electively repaired group. Box and Whisker plots and ROC curves were generated to determine the indices’ potential as predictors of rupture risk. Listed from highest to lowest area under the ROC curve (AUC), the following six indices were found statistically significant (p < 0.05): volume (V, p < 0.0001), surface area (S, p < 0.0001), intraluminal thrombus volume (VILT, p < 0.0001), diameter-to-diameter ratio (DDr, p < 0.0001), diameter-to-height ratio (DHr, p = 0.015), and centroid distance of the maximum diameter (dc, p = 0.008). Given that individual AAAs have complex, tortuous and asymmetric shapes with local changes in surface curvature and wall thickness, the assessment of AAA rupture risk should require the accurate characterization of aneurysmal sac shape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".