Impact of extra-anatomical bypass on coarctation fluid dynamics using patient-specific lumped parameter and Lattice Boltzmann modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate hemodynamic analysis is not only crucial for successful diagnosis of coarctation of the aorta (COA), but intervention decisions also rely on the hemodynamics assessment in both pre and post intervention states to minimize patient risks. Despite ongoing advances in surgical techniques for COA treatments, the impacts of extra-anatomic bypass grafting, a surgical technique to treat COA, on the aorta are not always benign. Our objective was to investigate the impact of bypass grafting on aortic hemodynamics. We investigated the impact of bypass grafting on aortic hemodynamics using a patient-specific computational-mechanics framework in three patients with COA who underwent bypass grafting. Our results describe that bypass grafting improved some hemodynamic metrics while worsened the others: (1) Doppler pressure gradient improved (decreased) in all patients; (2) Bypass graft did not reduce the flow rate substantially through the COA; (3) Systemic arterial compliance increased in patients #1 and 3 and didn't change (improve) in patient 3; (4) Hypertension got worse in all patients; (5) The flow velocity magnitude improved (reduced) in patient 2 and 3 but did not improve significantly in patient 1; (6) There were elevated velocity magnitude, persistence of vortical flow structure, elevated turbulence characteristics, and elevated wall shear stress at the bypass graft junctions in all patients. We concluded that bypass graft may lead to pseudoaneurysm formation and potential aortic rupture as well as intimal hyperplasia due to the persistent abnormal and irregular aortic hemodynamics in some patients. Moreover, post-intervention, exposures of endothelial cells to high shear stress may lead to arterial remodeling, aneurysm, and rupture.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".