Vessel calibre and flow splitting relationships at the internal carotid artery terminal bifurcation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Vessel lumen calibres and flow rates are thought to be related by mathematical power laws, reflecting the optimization of cardiac versus metabolic work. While these laws have been confirmed indirectly via measurement of branch calibres, there is little data confirming power law relationships of flow distribution to branch calibres at individual bifurcations. APPROACH: Flow rates and diameters of parent and daughter vessels of the internal carotid artery terminal bifurcation were determined, via robust and automated methods, from 4D phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging and 3D rotational angiography of 31 patients. MAIN RESULTS: Junction exponents were 2.06 ± 0.44 for relating parent to daughter branch diameters (geometrical exponent), and 2.45 ± 0.75 for relating daughter branch diameters to their flow division (flow split exponent). These exponents were not significantly different, but showed large inter- and intra-individual variations, and with confidence intervals excluding the theoretical optimum of 3. Power law fits of flow split versus diameter ratio and pooled flow rates versus diameters showed exponents of 2.17 and 1.96, respectively. A significant negative correlation was found between age and the geometrical exponent (r = -0.55, p = 0.003) but not the flow split exponent. We also found a dependence of our results on how lumen diameter is measured, possibly explaining some of the variability in the literature. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study confirms that, on average, division of flow to the middle and anterior cerebral arteries is related to these vessels' relative calibres via a power law, but it is closer to a square law than a cube law as commonly assumed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".