Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41357085›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025

AI-driven decision making for intravascular device selection in aortic disease. Current insights and prospects.

Rasit Dinc, Nurittin Ardic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Rasit DincINVAMED Medical Innovation Institute, New York, NY, United States.
Nurittin ArdicMed-International UK Health Agency Ltd., Leicestershire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

aortic aneurysmartificial intelligenceendovascular repairintravascular device selectionmedical image segmentation

Identifiers

PMID41357085
PMCPMC12676489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.