Latest Developments in Adapting Deep Learning for Assessing TAVR Procedures and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aortic valve defects are among the most prevalent clinical conditions. A severely damaged or non-functioning aortic valve is commonly replaced with a bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) via the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure. Accurate pre-operative planning is crucial for a successful TAVR outcome. Assessment of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), finite element analysis (FEA), and fluid-solid interaction (FSI) analysis offer a solution that has been increasingly utilized to evaluate BHV mechanics and dynamics. However, the high computational costs and the complex operation of computational modeling hinder its application. Recent advancements in the deep learning (DL) domain can offer a real-time surrogate that can render hemodynamic parameters in a few seconds, thus guiding clinicians to select the optimal treatment option. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of classical computational modeling approaches, medical imaging, and DL approaches for planning and outcome assessment of TAVR. Particularly, we focus on DL approaches in previous studies, highlighting the utilized datasets, deployed DL models, and achieved results. We emphasize the critical challenges and recommend several future directions for innovative researchers to tackle. Finally, an end-to-end smart DL framework is outlined for real-time assessment and recommendation of the best BHV design for TAVR. Ultimately, deploying such a framework in future studies will support clinicians in minimizing risks during TAVR therapy planning and will help in improving patient care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".