ArticleArXiv2025
On the performance of multi-fidelity and reduced-dimensional neural emulators for inference of physiologic boundary conditions.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solving inverse problems in cardiovascular modeling is particularly challenging due to the high computational cost of running high-fidelity simulations. In this work, we focus on Bayesian parameter estimation and explore different methods to reduce the computational cost of sampling from the posterior distribution by leveraging low-fidelity approximations. A common approach is to construct a surrogate model for the high-fidelity simulation itself. Another is to build a surrogate for the discrepancy between high- and low-fidelity models. This discrepancy, which is often easier to approximate, is modeled with either a fully connected neural network or a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique that enables surrogate construction in a lower-dimensional space. A third possible approach is to treat the discrepancy between the high-fidelity and surrogate models as random noise and estimate its distribution using normalizing flows. This allows us to incorporate the approximation error into the Bayesian inverse problem by modifying the likelihood function. We validate five different methods which are variations of the above on analytical test cases by comparing them to posterior distributions derived solely from high-fidelity models, assessing both accuracy and computational cost. Finally, we demonstrate our approaches on two cardiovascular examples of increasing complexity: a lumped-parameter Windkessel model and a patient-specific three-dimensional anatomy.
Identifiers
40980760PMC12447716What 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.