ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
AI-driven decision making for intravascular device selection in aortic disease. Current insights and prospects.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differentiable centerline-aware framework for aneurysm neck delineation in volumetric angiography.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Immunologically Adaptive Endovascular Devices: Integrating Thrombo-Inflammation, Biomaterials Design, and Artificial Intelligence for Precision Cardiovascular Intervention.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence for Computer-Aided Detection in Endovascular Interventions: Clinical Applications, Validation, and Translational Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bioresorbable Vascular Stents: How Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Influence Biocompatibility, Degradation Kinetics, and Device Performance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Middle meningeal artery embolization in chronic subdural hematoma: bridging surgical innovations and molecular mechanisms.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Patient-specific digital twins in aortic disease: integrating computational hemodynamics, immune profiling, and precision endovascular strategy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abdominal and thoracic aortic repairs increasingly rely on endovascular solutions, but device selection in anatomically complex cases remains prone to error due to measurement variability, tortuosity, short/angulated necks, and heterogeneous post-EVAR evolution. This article focuses on artificial intelligence (AI) tools that support intravascular device selection and planning, particularly in abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysms, and type B dissection scenarios where endovascular repair (EVAR/TEVAR) is applicable. We synthesize evidence on (i) automated centerline extraction and 3D measurements that standardize sizing; (ii) risk models that predict inadequate sealing or endoleakage to guide oversizing and landing zone strategy; and (iii) procedural environment "augmented intelligence" maps and extended reality modules that operationalize device selections in the laboratory. We summarize commercial and research-level systems, clinical readiness, and regulatory status, and outline validation, explainability, and bias considerations. While current evidence-based workflows achieve excellent results, targeted AI components reduce variability and can support consistent device decisions across complex anatomies. Prospective, multicenter validation is needed before routine implementation; for now, AI should be viewed as a complement, rather than a replacement, to established EVAR/TEVAR planning and oversight.
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.