ArticleRadiology2025
Anatomy-derived 3D Aortic Hemodynamics Using Fluid Physics-informed Deep Learning.
Article in Radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Valve Anatomy to Molecular Trajectories: Integrating Proteomics into Precision Care for Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular Information and Health Engineering Medicine.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Four-dimensional (4D) flow MRI provides assessment of thoracic aorta hemodynamic measures that are increasingly recognized as important biomarkers for risk assessment. However, long acquisition times and cumbersome data analysis limit widespread availability. Purpose To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a generative artificial intelligence (AI) approach (fluid physics-informed cycle generative adversarial network [FPI-CycleGAN]) in quantifying aorta hemodynamics directly from anatomic input as an alternative to 4D flow MRI. Materials and Methods Patients were retrospectively identified from a dataset of clinical cardiothoracic MRI examinations performed between November 2011 and July 2020. All patients underwent aortic 4D flow MRI, which served as a reference standard for training and testing of FPI-CycleGANs. A three-dimensional (3D) segmentation of the aortic geometry was used as the only input to predict systolic aortic hemodynamics, with separate networks for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) (994 in the training set and 248 in the test set) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) (419 in the training set and 104 in the test set). Voxel-by-voxel and regional analyses were used to quantify and compare (AI vs the reference standard, 4D flow) systolic velocity vector fields, peak velocity, wall shear stress (WSS), and classification of aortic valve stenosis. Results In total, 1765 patients (median age, 53 years [IQR, 41-63 years]; 1242 patients had BAV and 523 had TAV) were included. Mean AI computation time was 0.15 second ± 0.11 (SD), and total training was 1500 and 3600 minutes for the TAV and BAV networks, respectively. The FPI-CycleGAN predicted systolic 3D velocity vector fields accurately, with low bias (<0.01 m/sec) and excellent limits of agreements (±0.06-0.08 m/sec). For peak velocities and WSS, there was strong agreement between FPI-CycleGAN and 4D flow (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.