AI-powered assessment of biomarkers for growth prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to employ biomechanics-based biomarkers to locally characterize abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) tissue and investigate their relation to local aortic growth by means of an artificial intelligence model. Methods: The study focused on a population of 36 patients with AAAs undergoing serial monitoring with electrocardiogram-gated multiphase computed tomography angiography acquisitions. The geometries of the aortic lumen and wall were reconstructed from the baseline scans and used for the baseline assessment of regional aortic weakness with three functional biomarkers, time-averaged wall-shear stress, in vivo principal strain, and intra-luminal thrombus thickness. The biomarkers were encoded as regional averages on axial and circumferential sections perpendicularly to the aortic centerline. Local diametric growth was obtained as difference in diameter between baseline and follow-up at the level of each axial section. An artificial intelligence model was developed to predict accelerated aneurysmal growth with the Extra Trees algorithm used as a binary classifier where the positive class represented regions that grew more than 2.5 mm/year. Additional clinical biomarkers, such as maximum aortic diameter at baseline, were also investigated as predictors of growth. Results: The area under the curve for the constructed receiver operating characteristic curve for the Extra Trees classifier showed a very good performance in predicting relevant aortic growth (area under the curve = 0.92), with the three biomechanics-based functional biomarkers being objectively selected as the main predictors of growth. Conclusions: The use of features based on the functional and local characterization of the aortic tissue resulted in a superior performance in terms of growth prediction when compared with models based on geometrical assessments. With rapid growth linked to increasing risk for patients with AAAs, the ability to access functional information related to tissue weakening and disease progression at baseline has the potential to support early clinical decisions and improve disease management.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".