Use of Factor Analysis to Characterize Arterial Geometry and Predict Hemodynamic Risk: Application to the Human Carotid Bifurcation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detailed geometry of atherosclerosis-prone vascular segments may influence their susceptibility by mediating local hemodynamics. An appreciation of the role of specific geometric variables is complicated by the considerable correlation among the many parameters that can be used to describe arterial shape and size. Factor analysis is a useful tool for identifying the essential features of such an inter-related data set, as well as for predicting hemodynamic risk in terms of these features and for interpreting the role of specific geometric variables. Here, factor analysis is applied to a set of 14 geometric variables obtained from magnetic resonance images of 50 human carotid bifurcations. Two factors alone were capable of predicting 12 hemodynamic metrics related to shear and near-wall residence time with adjusted squared Pearson's correlation coefficient as high as 0.54 and P-values less than 0.0001. One factor measures cross-sectional expansion at the bifurcation; the other measures the colinearity of the common and internal carotid artery axes at the bifurcation. The factors explain the apparent lack of an effect of branch angle on hemodynamic risk. The relative risk among the 50 bifurcations, based on time-average wall shear stress, could be predicted with a sensitivity and specificity as high as 0.84. The predictability of the hemodynamic metrics and relative risk is only modestly sensitive to assumptions about flow rates and flow partitions in the bifurcation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".