A classification approach to improve out of sample predictability of structure‐based constitutive models for ascending thoracic aortic tissue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research, a pipeline was developed to assess the out-of-sample predictive capability of structure-based constitutive models of ascending aortic aneurysmal tissue. The hypothesis being tested is that a biomarker can help establish similarities among tissues sharing the same level of a quantifiable property, thus enabling the development of biomarker-specific constitutive models. Biomarker-specific averaged material models were constructed from biaxial mechanical tests of specimens that shared similar biomarker properties such as level of blood-wall shear stress or microfiber (elastin or collagen) degradation in the extracellular matrix. Using a cross-validation strategy commonly used in classification algorithms, biomarker-specific averaged material models were assessed in contrast to individual tissue mechanics of out of sample specimens that fell under the same category but did not contribute to the averaged model's generation. The normalized root means square errors (NRMSE) calculated on out-of-sample data were compared with average models when no categorization was performed versus biomarker-specific models and among different level of a biomarker. Different biomarker levels exhibited statistically different NRMSE when compared among each other, indicating more common features shared by the specimens belonging to the lower error groups. However, no specific biomarkers reached a significant difference when compared to the average model created when No Categorization was performed, possibly on account of unbalanced number of specimens. The method developed could allow for the screening of different biomarkers or combinations/interactions in a systematic manner leading the way to larger datasets and to more individualized constitutive approaches.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".