Geometry of the Carotid Bifurcation Predicts Its Exposure to Disturbed Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: That certain vessels might be at so-called geometric risk of atherosclerosis rests on assumptions of wide interindividual variations in disturbed flow and of a direct relationship between disturbed flow and lumen geometry. In testing these often-implicit assumptions, the present study aimed to determine whether investigations of local risk factors in atherosclerosis can indeed rely on surrogate geometric markers of disturbed flow. METHODS: Computational fluid dynamics simulations were performed on carotid bifurcation geometries derived from MRI of 25 young adults. Disturbed flow was quantified as the surface area exposed to low and oscillatory shear beyond objectively-defined thresholds. Interindividual variations in disturbed flow were contextualized with respect to effects of uncertainties in imaging and geometric reconstruction. Relationships between disturbed flow and various geometric factors were tested via multiple regression. RESULTS: Relatively wide variations in disturbed flow were observed among the 50 vessels. Multiple regression revealed a significant (P<0.002) relationship between disturbed flow and both proximal area ratio (beta approximately 0.5) and bifurcation tortuosity (beta approximately -0.4), but not bifurcation angle, planarity, or distal area ratio. These findings were shown to be insensitive to assumptions about the flow conditions and to the choice of disturbed flow indicator and threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Certain geometric features of the young adult carotid bifurcation are robust surrogate markers of its exposure to disturbed flow. It may therefore be reasonable to consider large-scale retrospective or prospective imaging studies of local risk factors for atherosclerosis without the need for time-consuming and expensive flow imaging or CFD studies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".