Abstract 14658: Accuracy of 3D Printed Models of the Aortic Valve Complex for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Planning: Comparison to Computed Tomographic Angiography (CTA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: TAVR is a safe alternative to surgical valve replacement. 3D printing is an emerging technology transforming 2D medical images to tangible anatomically accurate models. Hypothesis: To determine the accuracy of 3D printed models of the aortic valve (AV) complex for TAVR planning compared to CTA. Methods: 10 pts with pre TAVR contrast enhanced CTA were randomly selected. The blood pool of the AV complex from proximal ascending aorta above the coronary arteries to the AV annulus was automatically segmented. A 3D printable STL model was exported to Computer Aided Design software and further processed. Models were printed with a material extrusion 3D printer. One reader blinded to CTA measured the max and min diameter of the AV annulus and coronary ostia takeoff height of the printed model with a caliper. Two independent CV imagers performed these measurements in double-oblique CTA reformats. Model measurements were compared to CTA findings by Pearson’s correlation and via the mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the absolute difference to CTA compared to CTA interobserver differences. Results: 3D printed model measurements had excellent correlation to CTA (r=.86-.97). Mean absolute difference in max diameter between 3D-printed model and CTA was 0.85 mm (CI: [.43, 1.28]), compared to 1.17mm (CI: [.59, 1.75]) between CTA readers; for min diameter it was 0.49mm (CI: [.2, .78]) compared to 0.45mm (CI: [.17, .73]) between CTA readers. Mean absolute difference of height to left main ostium was 1.62mm (CI: [.93, 2.3]) compared to 1.47 mm (CI: [.78, 2.16]) for CTA readers, and to right coronary ostium it was 1.0 mm (CI: [0.53-1.46]) compared to 1.98 mm (CI: [1.38, 2.58]) for CTA readers. Conclusion: CTA-derived 3D printed models of the AV complex provided excellent correlation to CTA measurements of the annulus and ostia height. 3D printing can assist towards planning of TAVR sizing and minimizing procedural complications such as paravalvular leak and coronary occlusion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".