A review on the biomechanical behaviour of the aorta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large aortic aneurysm and acute and chronic aortic dissection are pathologies of the aorta requiring surgery. Recent advances in medical intervention have improved patient outcomes; however, a clear understanding of the mechanisms leading to aortic failure and, hence, a better understanding of failure risk, is still missing. Biomechanical analysis of the aorta could provide insights into the development and progression of aortic abnormalities, giving clinicians a powerful tool in risk stratification. The complexity of the aortic system presents significant challenges for a biomechanical study and requires various approaches to analyse the aorta. To address this, here we present a holistic review of the biomechanical studies of the aorta by categorising articles into four broad approaches, namely theoretical, in vivo, experimental and combined investigations. Experimental studies that focus on identifying mechanical properties of the aortic tissue are also included. By reviewing the literature and discussing drawbacks, limitations and future challenges in each area, we hope to present a more complete picture of the state-of-the-art of aortic biomechanics to stimulate research on critical topics. Combining experimental modalities and computational approaches could lead to more comprehensive results in risk prediction for the aortic system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".