Personalized Stroke Risk Assessment in Atrial Fibrillation Using Fluid-Structure Interaction and Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a heart rhythm disorder, representing a major risk factor for ischemic stroke.In patients with AF, the left atrial appendage (LAA) is the predominant site of thrombus formation, primarily due to blood stasis and disrupted haemodynamics [1,2].Despite a number of computational studies of the LAA hemodynamics have been based on rigid wall computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses [3], it has been shown that integrating the effect of the LAA walls through fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulations is necessary to achieve a more faithful representation of physiological conditions [4,5].Nevertheless, FSI simulations require more specialised expertise and considerably longer computational costs, making them less attractive for routine clinical use.In order to overcome this limitation, this study presents a deep-learning framework trained on FSI simulations performed on a synthetically generated dataset of LAA geometries derived from a statistical shape modelling pipeline [6].Unlike traditional CFD approaches, which are also employed as input data in deep learning research [7], the use of FSI analysis is expected to enhance the fidelity of training data to replicate physiological conditions and extract relevant haemodynamic descriptors such as the shear strain rate (SSR).Simulation results are used to compute the blood stasis factor (BSF), a biomarker that identifies regions exposed to prolonged stagnation and represents an indicator of the thrombogenic risk [4].To enable rapid and scalable inference, a dynamic graph convolutional neural network (DGCNN) was trained [7].The network model receives as input the point cloud representations of a generic LAA anatomy and gives as output the SRR predicted for each point, allowing the estimation of the thrombotic risk associated to the specific LAA.This work introduces a new computational paradigm for stroke risk evaluation in AF patients, linking physics-based simulations and real-time predictive modelling.By coupling FSI simulations with deep learning, the proposed approach provides a physiologically grounded, clinically scalable tool for thrombosis risk assessment.This deep learning-based approach may offer a faster and more accessible tool, supporting clinicians in the efficient assessment of thrombotic risk.Future developments will focus on the use of patient-specific imaging data and the integration into decision-support systems for personalised stroke prevention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".