Back

Sensitivity of Pulmonary 4D Flow MRI Biomarkers to Controlled Spatial and Temporal Degradation in a CFD Benchmark

Zubillaga-Unsain, A.; Caballero-Gaudes, C.; Ruiz-Cabello, J.

2026-10-02 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.09.30.755784 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Purpose: To quantify, in a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) benchmark, how spatial degradation, temporal acquisition and noise change the error of plane-based pulmonary-artery flow endpoints. Methods: Twenty-two historical, non-converged CFD simulations (11 geometry families) were voxelised at 2 mm with 80 frames per cycle. Simulations with numerical divergence were excluded, leaving 13 (7 families). Fields were degraded to 4 and 8 mm and with noise, plane waveforms were sampled at 20 phases with one-interval averaging, and errors were computed against the noise-free reference waveform on 66 geometric planes. Family-mean paired differences are reported with t-based 95% confidence intervals under an analysis plan fixed in advance. Results: Spatial degradation from 2 to 4 mm increased full-waveform nRMSE by 0.0032 [0.0021, 0.0043], in 7 of 7 families; cycle-mean flow bias accounted for 23% of the squared error, against 60% at 8 mm. With SNR scaled to voxel volume, the increase was not resolved (0.0002 [-0.0012, 0.0015]). Twenty-phase acquisition increased PI error (0.0223 [0.0214, 0.0233]) and diastolic-trough timing error (0.63 [0.52, 0.74] frames) more than spatial degradation, and its point estimates for these endpoints were larger with every recovery method; the nRMSE ordering and peak timing depended on the recovery method. The implementation of the downsampling operator mattered: an alternative, corner-aligned implementation of the same 4 mm degradation gave a larger spatial effect (nRMSE difference 0.0010 [0.0002, 0.0017]). Conclusion: In this benchmark, a 2 to 4 mm degradation produced a small, consistent, mostly shape-related nRMSE increase that depended on the noise model, whereas 20-phase acquisition changed PI error and trough timing more. The results describe benchmark behaviour, not clinical acquisition requirements.

Matching journals

The top 4 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.