Back

The Case for Interpretable Geometry: Statistical Shape Models vs. Curvature-Based Descriptors in Aortic Disease Classification

Pocivavsek, L.; Nguyen, D. M.; Pugar, J.

2026-07-31 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.07.29.26359299 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: Quantifying aortic morphology is central to surgical planning for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), yet no consensus exists on how best to represent three-dimensional aortic shape for outcome prediction. Two broad strategies have emerged: statistical shape analysis (SSA), which relies on statistical methods and dimensionality reduction to capture the most significant shape modes, and geometrically-informed approaches that extract descriptors grounded in differential geometry. Here, we directly compare these paradigms on a cohort of 290 CTA scans classified by surgical outcome (non-pathological, successful TEVAR, failed TEVAR). Methods: For the geometrically-informed approach, we use a two-dimensional feature space using normalized fluctuation in integrated Gaussian curvature $\widetilde{\delta K}$ and mean aortic radius $R$. For SSA, we construct a point-cloud shape model with dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and evaluate classification performance as a function of the number of retained principal components. Results: SSA's leading principal components encode variations in global aortic size and are statistically redundant with ($R$, $\widetilde{\delta K}$), yet they lack a one-to-one correspondence with interpretable anatomical quantities. Testing on an unseen, independent dataset reveals that the geometrically-informed approach provided better generalizability than SSA. Using Gaussian process classification with 10-fold cross-validation, we find that the geometrically-informed approach achieves a higher weighted $F_1$ score than SSA achieves with up to 20 principal components. While SSA's full-dataset accuracy rises above 90\% with increasing dimensionality, this gain is driven by overfitting rather than genuine discriminative power. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that geometrically-informed descriptors offer a more interpretable, robust, and clinically translatable framework for aortic disease classification than data-driven statistical shape representations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.