ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2026
On the accuracy of implicit neural representations for cardiovascular anatomies and hemodynamic fields.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Implicit neural representations (INRs, also known as neural fields) have recently emerged as a powerful framework for knowledge representation, synthesis, and compression. By encoding fields as continuous functions within the weights and biases of deep neural networks-rather than relying on voxel- or mesh-based structured or unstructured representations-INRs offer both resolution independence and high memory efficiency. However, their accuracy in domain-specific applications remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we assess the performance of state-of-the-art INRs for compressing hemodynamic fields derived from numerical simulations and for representing cardiovascular anatomies via signed distance functions. We investigate several strategies to mitigate spectral bias, including specialized activation functions, both fixed and trainable positional encodings, and linear combinations of nonlinear kernels. On realistic, space- and time-varying hemodynamic fields in the thoracic aorta, INRs achieved remarkable compression ratios of up to approximately 230, with maximum absolute errors of 1 mmHg for pressure and 5 to 10 cm/s for velocity, without extensive hyperparameter tuning. Across 48 thoracic aortic anatomies, the average and maximum absolute anatomical discrepancies were below 0.5 mm and 1.6 mm, respectively. Overall, the SIREN, MFN-Gabor, and MHE architectures demonstrated the best performance. Source code and data are available at https://github.com/desResLab/nrf.
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.