medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
The Case for Interpretable Geometry: Statistical Shape Models vs. Curvature-Based Descriptors in Aortic Disease Classification.
СтатьяПрепринтНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nguyen Duc, Pugar Joseph A, Pocivavsek Luka
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Quantifying aortic morphology is central to surgical planning for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), yet no consensus exists on how best to represent three-dimensional aortic shape for outcome prediction. Two broad strategies have emerged: statistical shape analysis (SSA), which relies on statistical methods and dimensionality reduction to capture the most significant shape modes, and geometrically-informed approaches that extract descriptors grounded in differential geometry. Here, we directly compare these paradigms on a cohort of 290 CTA scans classified by surgical outcome (non-pathological, successful TEVAR, failed TEVAR).
METHODS: For the geometrically-informed approach, we use a two-dimensional feature space using normalized fluctuation in integrated Gaussian curvature δ K ~ and mean aortic radius R . For SSA, we construct a point-cloud shape model with dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and evaluate classification performance as a function of the number of retained principal components.
RESULTS: SSA's leading principal components encode variations in global aortic size and are statistically redundant with ( R , δ K ~ ) , yet they lack a one-to-one correspondence with interpretable anatomical quantities. Testing on an unseen, independent dataset reveals that the geometrically-informed approach provided better generalizability than SSA. Using Gaussian process classification with 10-fold cross-validation, we find that the geometrically-informed approach achieves a higher weighted F 1 score than SSA achieves with up to 20 principal components. While SSA's full-dataset accuracy rises above 90% with increasing dimensionality, this gain is driven by overfitting rather than genuine discriminative power.
CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that geometrically-informed descriptors offer a more interpretable, robust, and clinically translatable framework for aortic disease classification than data-driven statistical shape representations.
METHODS: For the geometrically-informed approach, we use a two-dimensional feature space using normalized fluctuation in integrated Gaussian curvature δ K ~ and mean aortic radius R . For SSA, we construct a point-cloud shape model with dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and evaluate classification performance as a function of the number of retained principal components.
RESULTS: SSA's leading principal components encode variations in global aortic size and are statistically redundant with ( R , δ K ~ ) , yet they lack a one-to-one correspondence with interpretable anatomical quantities. Testing on an unseen, independent dataset reveals that the geometrically-informed approach provided better generalizability than SSA. Using Gaussian process classification with 10-fold cross-validation, we find that the geometrically-informed approach achieves a higher weighted F 1 score than SSA achieves with up to 20 principal components. While SSA's full-dataset accuracy rises above 90% with increasing dimensionality, this gain is driven by overfitting rather than genuine discriminative power.
CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that geometrically-informed descriptors offer a more interpretable, robust, and clinically translatable framework for aortic disease classification than data-driven statistical shape representations.