The Case for Interpretable Geometry: Statistical Shape Models vs. Curvature-Based Descriptors in Aortic Disease Classification
Pocivavsek, L.; Nguyen, D. M.; Pugar, J.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of residual intimal flap displacement post-TEVAR on TBAD haemodynamics in compliant, patient-specific CFD simulations informed by MRI 94%
- Effect of Sinotubular Junction Size on TAVR Leaflet Thrombosis: A Fluid-structure Interaction Analysis 94%
- Quantitative Assessment of Aortic Hemodynamics for Varying Left Ventricular Assist Device Outflow Graft Angles and Flow Pulsation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- In Silico Modeling of Transcatheter Heart Valve Oversizing and Ellipticity, Part I: Establishing Credibility of an Advanced Model 95%
- In Silico Modeling of Transcatheter Heart Valve Oversizing and Ellipticity, Part II: Effects on Leaflet Mechanics, Hemodynamics, and Stent Deflection Contributing to Thrombogenic Risk and Structural Degeneration 95%
- Computational hemodynamic indices to identify Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation degeneration 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Aortic annuloplasty FSI digital twin of 3D-printed phantoms with 4D-flow MRI comparison 95%
- Deployment of a digital twin using the coupled momentum method for fluid-structure interaction: a case study for aortic aneurysm 94%
- Personalized computational hemodynamic analysis in transcatheter aortic valve: investigation of long-term degeneration 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Computational Growth Framework for Biological Tissues: Application to Growth of Aortic Root Aneurysm Repaired by the V-shape Surgery 92%
- An Investigation into Patient-Specific 3D Printed Titanium Stents and the use of Etching to Overcome Selective Laser Melting Design Constraints. 90%
- A Whole Blood Thrombus Mimic: Constitutive Behavior Under Simple Shear 90%
"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.