Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

HeartSimSage: Attention-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks for Accelerating Cardiac Mechanics Modeling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read HeartSimSage trains a graph neural network to emulate cardiac FEA, claiming 0.13% averaged displacement error and a 13,000x GPU speedup while accepting variable patient mesh topology.

desk verdict A credible, well-engineered biventricular GNN emulator whose headline accuracy number does not reproduce from its own Table 5, and whose generalization claim may be inflated by an unclearly stratified train/test split. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18968 v1 pith:676CO5ZO submitted 2025-04-26 physics.med-ph

Lei Shi , Yurui Chen , Vijay Vedula This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph MSC 68T0792C10 PACS 87.19.Hh87.85.Gb
keywords cardiacmechanicsemulatorgraphneuralnetworkfiniteelementanalysisaccelerationbiventricularmyocardiumLaplace-Dirichletencodingattentionmechanismdigitaltwinmeshtopologygeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

HeartSimSage is a graph neural network built to stand in for finite element analysis (FEA) in passive biventricular cardiac mechanics. The paper claims that, given a patient's ventricular mesh, chamber pressures, and material parameters, the model predicts the myocardial displacement field with a nominal average error of 0.13% ± 0.12% while running roughly 13,000x faster on a GPU and 190x on a CPU than the FEA solver it mimics. If correct, this removes the main computational bottleneck for cardiac digital twins, which typically require tens to hundreds of FEA solves just to estimate tissue parameters. The model is designed to accept meshes with different node counts, orderings, and connectivity without retraining, addressing a limitation of earlier cardiac GNN emulators. A key caveat is that the 5,000-case cohort is built from only 150 source anatomies, with the rest generated by geometric augmentation.

What carries the argument

The architecture's load-bearing pieces are three. First, a set of Laplace-Dirichlet solutions on each geometry, with potentials such as $\Phi_{\mathrm{AB}}$ (apex-to-base), $\Phi_{\mathrm{EP}}$ (transmural), and $\Phi_{\mathrm{LV-RV}}$ (septal), encode every node's relative position and also feed a rule-based generator for fiber and sheet orientations. Second, a neighbor-selection scheme partitions candidate neighbors into five distance shells, from the nearest 0.2% out to the 10th-percentile distance, and samples roughly 12 neighbors per node, keeping both local and mid-range information in the message-passing. Third, an eight-head transformer-style attention layer reweights those edge embeddings before average pooling and a residual addition to the node embedding. Global inputs, namely the Holzapfel-Ogden material parameters, chamber pressures, and forty shape descriptors, are encoded separately and concatenated with the node embedding, and three MLP heads decode the x, y, and z displacement components. Subset training on 300 randomly chosen nodes per sample per epoch keeps the training cost low while still covering the whole domain across epochs.

What would settle it

Regroup the 5,000 cases so that all augmented geometries from the same source heart stay in the same fold, retrain HeartSimSage, and report test displacement errors; if the mean error rises well above 0.13%, the current test error contains geometry leakage. A complementary check is to train on the 4,850 augmented cases only and test on the 150 original, unaugmented segmentations, which isolates whether the model has learned anatomy transfer rather than interpolation between augmented siblings.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an attention-enhanced GNN using Laplace-Dirichlet spatial encoding, distance-partitioned neighbor sampling, and per-axis decoders can faithfully emulate passive biventricular FEA across variable geometries, pressures, and orthotropic material parameters. On the test set, the averaged component-wise displacement errors are at most 0.15% ± 0.14%, pointwise differences stay below 0.4 mm in nearly all cases, and the LV and RV cavity volume errors are 0.20% ± 0.17% and 0.52% ± 0.36%. Prediction takes 0.0084 seconds per case on an L40S GPU and 0.6 seconds on a CPU, versus 112 ± 35 seconds for one FEA solve on the same CPU, which yields the reported 13,000x and 190x speedups. The paper further argues that the Laplace-Dirichlet features beat one-hot boundary encodings, that attention weights concentrate on the nearest neighbors while mid-range nodes still contribute, and that the model transfers to a published left-ventricle dataset with accuracy close to the earlier GNN emulator.

Load-bearing premise

The generalization claim rests on the train/test split of the 5,000 simulated cases, but 4,850 of those cases are augmented variants of just 150 source hearts and the paper does not say the split is patient-level; if meshes derived from the same source segmentation appear in both training and test sets, the reported 0.13% error overstates accuracy on a truly new patient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Patient-specific parameter estimation becomes a search problem rather than a bottleneck: hundreds of candidate material-parameter sets could be evaluated in seconds, which is what digital-twin calibration currently lacks.
  • Dynamic node topology means a model trained once on a population of meshes can be applied to a new patient's mesh without remeshing, reordering, or retraining, a prerequisite for real clinical adoption.
  • The Laplace-Dirichlet spatial encoding is geometry-agnostic, so the same recipe can be carried to atrial, whole-heart, or other organ mechanics where boundary-relative position matters.
  • Attention-weight analysis yields a practical design rule for other mesh-based emulators: sample neighbors mostly from the nearest shells while keeping a few mid-range nodes, rather than using uniform random sampling.
  • If the accuracy holds under patient-level evaluation, interactive cardiac simulation becomes feasible for surgical planning and near-real-time monitoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 13,000x number compares a single GPU inference to a single CPU FEA solve; the end-to-end economy of the method also depends on the one-time cost of simulating and storing the 5,000-case training corpus, which the paper does not amortize into the speedup.
  • A patient-level split is the sharpest test the authors could run next, and the paper's own description of the augmentation pipeline makes such leakage a live possibility rather than a settled issue.
  • The attention weights already show a steep distance decay, so a simple variant that replaces learned attention with a fixed distance-based weighting would reveal how much of the gain comes from attention per se and how much from the multiscale neighbor sampling.
  • Because all inputs are static and the cardiac cycle is dynamic, extending the architecture with a temporal decoder for time-varying pressures is the natural next step, and nothing in the described design blocks that extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents HeartSimSage, an attention-enhanced graph neural network emulator of passive biventricular cardiac finite element mechanics. The model takes as input a patient-specific biventricular mesh, Laplace-Dirichlet spatial encodings, fiber orientations, material parameters, chamber pressures, and shape descriptors, and outputs nodal displacement fields. The authors train on 5,000 simulated cases derived from 150 segmented image volumes plus geometric augmentation, and report a GPU inference speedup of roughly 13,000x and CPU speedup of 190x over FEA, together with a nominal averaged displacement error of 0.13% ± 0.12%. The manuscript includes sensitivity studies of learning rate, batch size, Laplace encoding, subset node count, neighbor connection strategy, and attention mechanism, plus a comparison with a published left-ventricular GNN emulator.

Significance. If the accuracy and speed claims hold, HeartSimSage would be a useful surrogate for passive biventricular FEA in applications that require many simulations, such as parameter estimation or digital twin workflows. The architecture is sensibly engineered: Laplace-Dirichlet features are a natural spatial encoding for irregular cardiac meshes; the subset-based training and GraphSAGE-inspired neighbor partitioning address scalability; and the attention analysis in Section 3.3 provides interpretable evidence that the model weights local neighbors more strongly. The authors also ship a code link and compare against a reimplementation of a published LV emulator, which is commendable. However, the central accuracy claim is currently not verifiable from the paper's own Table 5, and the train/test split is not shown to be patient-independent. These issues are fixable but they block acceptance as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 5; Abstract; §5] The headline accuracy figure '0.13% ± 0.12%' is not reproducible from Table 5. Averaging the three component-wise means gives (0.15 + 0.11 + 0.10)/3 = 0.12%, not 0.13%; averaging the reported standard deviations gives (0.14 + 0.10 + 0.10)/3 ≈ 0.11%, not 0.12%. A pooled computation over all nodes and components would give yet another value, and the paper does not state which aggregation was used. Because the abstract and conclusion both advertise this number, the central accuracy claim as written is not verifiable from the paper's own reported data. Please specify the exact error metric used for the headline number (e.g., mean over nodes of per-node Euclidean displacement error normalized per geometry, or mean over components) and recalculate all reported accuracies consistently.
  2. [§2.4 and §2.6] The train/validation/test split is not stratified at the patient or source-segmentation level. Section 2.4 generates 4,850 pseudo-geometries from 150 source segmentations, and Section 2.6 splits the resulting 5,000 cases into 4,000 training, 500 validation, and 500 test cases without stating whether augmented meshes derived from the same source geometry are confined to one split. If augmented cases from the same source appear in both training and test sets, the reported 0.13% error would be inflated by geometry leakage and would not support the claimed generalization to new patients. Please either demonstrate that no augmented test geometry shares a source segmentation with any training geometry, or perform a source-level split and report test metrics under that split.
  3. [§4.7, Table 14] The external 'validation' on the LV mechanics dataset reports only training and validation losses; no held-out test displacement or volume errors are given for either HeartSimSage or the passive-lv-gnn-emul baseline. The abstract's statement that the model was 'validated' on a published LV dataset is therefore stronger than the evidence presented. Please add test-set metrics and specify the split used for the LV dataset, ideally at the patient level.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 6] The sentence 'A node-wise difference ... is below 0.4 mm for all cases except case 5' refers to the nine randomly selected cases shown in Fig. 6, but as written it could be misread as a claim about the entire test set. Please clarify that this statement concerns the displayed cases only.
  2. [§2.5.2, Eq. (9)] The notation in the neighbor subset definitions, e.g., 'k∈V nSC1', is ambiguous because the subscript is not defined as a separate set or constant. Please clarify whether these are all nodes in the mesh or a candidate pool of a specific size.
  3. [§2.6] The code repository link is useful, but the manuscript should state a versioned commit or release and a license, since the reproducibility claim depends on the exact implementation.
  4. [§3.2] The GPU is described as an 'Nvidia Titan L40S'; the correct product name is usually 'NVIDIA L40S' (not 'Titan'). Please correct this label.
  5. [§3.3, Table 6] The one-way ANOVA result is reported only as p < 0.05; please state the number of samples used in the test and whether multiple-comparison correction was applied across the five distance bins.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the emulator is benchmarked against the independent FEA solver it imitates, with an external LV dataset check; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that HeartSimSage reproduces FEA displacement fields for passive biventricular mechanics. The ground-truth labels are FEA solutions from an in-house svFSI-derived solver, and the network maps geometry, fiber orientations, Laplace-Dirichlet features, material parameters, and pressures to displacements (Eqs. 5-18). No parameter is fitted to the test error and then renamed a prediction; the reported errors (Eq. 20) compare network outputs to independent FEA outputs, which is the correct external target for an emulator. The external LV dataset comparison (Sec. 4.7, Table 14) further benchmarks the model against the published GNN of Dalton et al. [34], so the accuracy claim is not sustained solely by self-citation. The citations to the authors' prior work [29,85,86] supply the mechanics formulation, parameter ranges, and solver benchmarking context; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative architectures, and the sensitivity analyses (Sec. 4) compare architectural choices on validation loss rather than importing a forced result. Two caveats are noted but are not circularity. First, the train/test split in Sec. 2.4-2.6 is not described as patient-stratified, so augmented pseudo-geometries from the same 150 source segmentations could appear in both training and test, which would inflate generalization claims; this is a potential data-leakage risk, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs by construction. Second, the abstract's '0.13% +- 0.12%' does not obviously follow from Table 5's component-wise means and standard deviations, since simple averaging of the three component means gives 0.12% and of the standard deviations gives about 0.11%, and the paper does not state the aggregation rule; this is an internal reporting inconsistency that affects verifiability, not a circular derivation. Because the derivation is a standard supervised emulation pipeline with an independent target and an external check, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the FEA solver for labels, a rule-based fiber model, and synthetic augmentation; none of these are benchmarked against experimental data in this paper. The neural network weights and a small set of hyperparameters are the only fitted quantities, and the fixed fiber angle rule is a modeling assumption that the authors themselves flag as a limitation.

free parameters (4)
  • Learned network weights (all MLP and attention parameters) = Not enumerated; optimized on 4,000 training cases
    These are the fitted parameters of the emulator; they are estimated from the FEA training data and carry the predictive burden.
  • Subset size nS = 300 nodes per sample per epoch
    Selected by validation; nS=10 degrades validation loss, nS=1000 gives no improvement and doubles cost (Sec. 4.4).
  • Neighbor count nNB = 12
    Tuned in Sec. 4.5; nNB=30 improves validation loss slightly but not enough to justify the additional cost.
  • Fiber angle rule parameters = Endocardial 40 degrees to epicardial -50 degrees; sheet angle -65 to 25 degrees
    Taken from Bayer et al. and applied uniformly to all 5,000 cases; this is a modeling choice rather than a patient measurement, and it affects the displacement labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The svFSI-based stabilized finite element solver produces accurate ground truth displacements for passive biventricular mechanics.
    All 5,000 labels are generated by this in-house solver (Sec. 2.4). The paper cites prior benchmarks but presents no solver validation for this cohort.
  • domain assumption Rule-based fiber orientation with fixed angle ranges is adequate for patient-specific fiber architecture.
    Fiber and sheet angles are assigned by the same Laplace-Dirichlet rule for every geometry (Sec. 2.3), and the authors note in Sec. 4.8 that varying these rules could change predictions.
  • domain assumption Augmented pseudo-geometries represent anatomical variability of real patients.
    4,850 of 5,000 cases are generated by scaling, shearing, and elastic deformation (Sec. 2.4); the test distribution is mostly synthetic, so realism of augmentation bounds clinical transfer.
  • domain assumption Randomly sampling 300 nodes per case per epoch gives sufficiently representative training gradients for the full displacement field.
    Training uses subset sampling (Alg. 1) while testing evaluates all nodes; convergence depends on this sampling assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HeartSimSage: Attention-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks for Accelerating Cardiac Mechanics Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/676CO5ZO

@misc{pith2026250418968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HeartSimSage: Attention-Enhanced Graph Neural Networks for Accelerating Cardiac Mechanics Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/676CO5ZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18968}
}
read the original abstract

Finite element analysis (FEA) forms the cornerstone of modeling cardiac biomechanics but is computationally expensive, limiting its clinical application for digital twin creation, which often requires tens to hundreds of simulations to estimate tissue parameters. We developed an attention-enhanced graph neural network (GNN)-based FEA emulator, HeartSimSage, to rapidly predict passive biventricular myocardial displacements from patient-specific geometries, chamber pressures, and material properties. HeartSimSage addresses the limitations of current emulators by effectively handling diverse three-dimensional (3D) biventricular geometries, mesh topologies, fiber directions, structurally based constitutive models, and physiological boundary conditions. It supports flexible mesh structures with variable node counts, orderings, and element connectivity. To optimize information propagation, we designed a neighboring connection strategy inspired by Graph Sample and Aggregate (GraphSAGE) that prioritizes local interactions while maintaining mid-to-long-range dependencies. We further incorporated Laplace-Dirichlet solutions for enhanced spatial encoding and employed subset-based training for improved efficiency. By integrating an attention mechanism, HeartSimSage adaptively weighs neighbor contributions and filters irrelevant information, enhancing prediction accuracy. HeartSimSage achieves approximately 13,000x speedup on GPU and 190x on CPU compared to traditional FEA, while maintaining a nominal averaged error of 0.13% +- 0.12% in predicting biventricular displacements. We validated our model using a published left ventricle dataset and conducted sensitivity analyses on hyperparameters, neighboring strategies, and the attention mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of HeartSimSage, a biventricular finite element analysis (FEA) em￾ulator to predict passive deformations from an image-based geometry, chamber pressures, and material properties including local fiber directions. the training strategy. Section 3 presents the results, including dataset de￾tails, prediction outcomes, and the attention-derived weights. Section 4 in￾vestigates the effects of hyperparameters,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Workflow for segmenting the biventricular myocardial geometry and creating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The solutions to Laplace-Dirichlet problems (defined in Table 1) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of the HeartSimSage model architecture. The model predicts nodal displacements based on a combination of nodal features—such as fiber orientation and Laplace values—and global features, including material parameters, ap￾plied pressures, and sha…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distributions of biventricular myocardial dimensions across the entire study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison between FEA-computed and HeartSimSage-predicted biventricular myocardial displacements for passive pressure loading in 9 randomly selected cases. For each case, the FEA-computed displacements (left), the HeartSimSage-predicted displace￾ments (center), and th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Normalized prediction error distributions on the test dataset between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The attention weight distribution for neighboring nodes in different ranges based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Training (a) and validation (b) losses for different learning rates. Light red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training (a) and validation (b) losses for different batch sizes. Light red denotes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of training (a) and validation (b) losses between the case with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Training (a) and validation (b) losses for varying subset node numbers, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Training (a,c) and validation (b,d) losses with different neighboring node se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Comparison of training (a) and validation (b) losses between the case with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Training (a) and validation (b) losses of the left ventricular dataset training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HeartUnloadNet: A Weakly-Supervised Cycle-Consistent Graph Network for Predicting Unloaded Cardiac Geometry from Diastolic States

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HeartUnloadNet maps end-diastolic left-ventricular meshes to unloaded geometries in milliseconds on synthetic finite element data, but the reported DSC and sample-efficiency numbers are internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N. A. Trayanova, J. Constantino, V. Gurev, Electromechanical models of the ventricles, American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circula- tory Physiology 301 (2011) H279–H286

    2011

  2. [2]

    S. G. Campbell, A. D. McCulloch, Multi-scale computational models of familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: genotype to phenotype, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 8 (2011) 1550–1561

    2011

  3. [3]

    A. L. Marsden, M. Esmaily-Moghadam, Multiscale modeling of cardio- vascular flows for clinical decision support, Applied Mechanics Reviews 67 (2015) 030804

    2015

  4. [4]

    Palit, S

    A. Palit, S. K. Bhudia, T. N. Arvanitis, G. A. Turley, M. A. Williams, Computational modelling of left-ventricular diastolic mechanics: Effect of fibre orientation and right-ventricle topology, Journal of biomechan- ics 48 (2015) 604–612

    2015

  5. [5]

    Mittal, J

    R. Mittal, J. H. Seo, V. Vedula, Y. J. Choi, H. Liu, H. H. Huang, S. Jain, L. Younes, T. Abraham, R. T. George, Computational model- ing of cardiac hemodynamics: current status and future outlook, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 305 (2016) 1065–1082

    2016

  6. [6]

    Sotiropoulos, T

    F. Sotiropoulos, T. B. Le, A. Gilmanov, Fluid mechanics of heart valves and their replacements, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 48 (2016) 259–283

    2016

  7. [7]

    Vedula, J

    V. Vedula, J. Lee, H. Xu, C.-C. J. Kuo, T. K. Hsiai, A. L. Marsden, A method to quantify mechanobiologic forces during zebrafish cardiac de- velopment using 4-d light sheet imaging and computational modeling, PLoS computational biology 13 (2017) e1005828. 41

    2017

  8. [8]

    Finsberg, C

    H. Finsberg, C. Xi, J. L. Tan, L. Zhong, M. Genet, J. Sundnes, L. C. Lee, S. T. Wall, Efficient estimation of personalized biventricular me- chanical function employing gradient-based optimization, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering 34 (2018) e2982

    2018

Show all 119 references
  1. [9]

    J. Lee, V. Vedula, K. I. Baek, J. Chen, J. J. Hsu, Y. Ding, C.-C. Chang, H. Kang, A. Small, P. Fei, et al., Spatial and temporal variations in hemodynamic forces initiate cardiac trabeculation, JCI insight 3 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    M. R. Pfaller, J. M. H¨ ormann, M. Weigl, A. Nagler, R. Chabiniok, C. Bertoglio, W. A. Wall, The importance of the pericardium for cardiac biomechanics: from physiology to computational modeling, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology 18 (2019) 503–529

    2019

  3. [11]

    Yoshida, J

    K. Yoshida, J. W. Holmes, Computational models of cardiac hypertro- phy, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology 159 (2021) 75–85

    2021

  4. [12]

    E. L. Schwarz, L. Pegolotti, M. R. Pfaller, A. L. Marsden, Beyond cfd: Emerging methodologies for predictive simulation in cardiovascu- lar health and disease, Biophysics Reviews 4 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Green, W

    L. Green, W. X. Chan, A. Tulzer, G. Tulzer, C. H. Yap, Myocardial biomechanical effects of fetal aortic valvuloplasty, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology 23 (2024) 1433–1448

    2024

  6. [14]

    Corral-Acero, F

    J. Corral-Acero, F. Margara, M. Marciniak, C. Rodero, F. Loncaric, Y. Feng, A. Gilbert, J. F. Fernandes, H. A. Bukhari, A. Wajdan, et al., The ‘digital twin’to enable the vision of precision cardiology, European heart journal 41 (2020) 4556–4564

    2020

  7. [15]

    Qureshi, G

    A. Qureshi, G. Y. Lip, D. A. Nordsletten, S. E. Williams, O. Aslanidi, A. De Vecchi, Imaging and biophysical modelling of thrombogenic mechanisms in atrial fibrillation and stroke, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 9 (2023) 1074562

    2023

  8. [16]

    Qureshi, M

    A. Qureshi, M. Balmus, G. Lip, S. Williams, D. Nordsletten, O. Aslanidi, A. De Vecchi, Mechanistic modelling of virchows triad to assess thrombogenicity and stroke risk in atrial fibrillation patients, European Heart Journal-Digital Health 3 (2022) ztac076–2788. 42

    2022

  9. [17]

    M. S. Bazzi, R. Balouchzadeh, S. N. Pavey, J. D. Quirk, H. Yanagi- sawa, V. Vedula, J. E. Wagenseil, V. H. Barocas, Experimental and mouse-specific computational models of the fbln4 smko mouse to iden- tify potential biomarkers for ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm, Car- diov...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Crozier, C

    A. Crozier, C. Augustin, A. Neic, A. Prassl, M. Holler, T. Fastl, A. Hen- nemuth, K. Bredies, T. Kuehne, M. Bishop, et al., Image-based person- alization of cardiac anatomy for coupled electromechanical modeling, Annals of biomedical engineering 44 (2016) 58–70

    2016

  11. [19]

    L. Marx, J. A. Niestrawska, M. A. Gsell, F. Caforio, G. Plank, C. M. Augustin, Robust and efficient fixed-point algorithm for the inverse elastostatic problem to identify myocardial passive material parameters and the unloaded reference configuration, Journal of computational ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Balaban, H

    G. Balaban, H. Finsberg, H. H. Odland, M. E. Rognes, S. Ross, J. Sundnes, S. Wall, High-resolution data assimilation of cardiac me- chanics applied to a dyssynchronous ventricle, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering 33 (2017) e2863

    2017

  13. [21]

    Gonzalo, C

    A. Gonzalo, C. M. Augustin, S. F. Bifulco, ˚A. Telle, Y. Chahine, A. Kassar, M. Guerrero-Hurtado, E. Dur´ an, P. Mart´ ınez-Legazpi, O. Flores, et al., Multiphysics simulations reveal haemodynamic im- pacts of patient-derived fibrosis-related changes in left atrial tissue me- ...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Mangion, H

    K. Mangion, H. Gao, D. Husmeier, X. Luo, C. Berry, Advances in computational modelling for personalised medicine after myocardial infarction, Heart 104 (2018) 550–557

    2018

  15. [23]

    P. M. Boyle, T. Zghaib, S. Zahid, R. L. Ali, D. Deng, W. H. Franceschi, J. B. Hakim, M. J. Murphy, A. Prakosa, S. L. Zimmerman, et al., Computationally guided personalized targeted ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation, Nature biomedical engineering 3 (2019) 870–879

    2019

  16. [24]

    S. A. Niederer, M. S. Sacks, M. Girolami, K. Willcox, Scaling digi- tal twins from the artisanal to the industrial, Nature Computational Science 1 (2021) 313–320. 43

    2021

  17. [25]

    Stimm, D

    J. Stimm, D. A. Nordsletten, J. Jilberto, R. Miller, E. Berbero˘ glu, S. Kozerke, C. T. Stoeck, Personalization of biomechanical simula- tions of the left ventricle by in-vivo cardiac dti data: Impact of fiber interpolation methods, Frontiers in Physiology 13 (2022) 2485

    2022

  18. [26]

    H. J. Arevalo, F. Vadakkumpadan, E. Guallar, A. Jebb, P. Malamas, K. C. Wu, N. A. Trayanova, Arrhythmia risk stratification of patients after myocardial infarction using personalized heart models, Nature communications 7 (2016) 11437

    2016

  19. [27]

    Gillette, M

    K. Gillette, M. A. Gsell, M. Strocchi, T. Grandits, A. Neic, M. Man- ninger, D. Scherr, C. H. Roney, A. J. Prassl, C. M. Augustin, et al., A personalized real-time virtual model of whole heart electrophysiology, Frontiers in Physiology (2022) 1860

    2022

  20. [28]

    A. L. Brown, M. Salvador, L. Shi, M. R. Pfaller, Z. Hu, K. E. Harold, T. Hsiai, V. Vedula, A. L. Marsden, A modular framework for implicit 3d–0d coupling in cardiac mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 421 (2024) 116764

    2024

  21. [29]

    L. Shi, I. Y. Chen, H. Takayama, V. Vedula, An optimization frame- work to personalize passive cardiac mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432 (2024) 117401

    2024

  22. [30]

    Jiang, Z

    Y. Jiang, Z. Yan, X. Wang, R. Chen, X.-C. Cai, A highly parallel algorithm for simulating the elastodynamics of a patient-specific human heart with four chambers using a heterogeneous hyperelastic model, Journal of Computational Physics 508 (2024) 113027

    2024

  23. [31]

    L. Feng, H. Gao, X. Luo, Whole-heart modelling with valves in a fluid–structure interaction framework, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 420 (2024) 116724

    2024

  24. [32]

    C. M. Augustin, A. Neic, M. Liebmann, A. J. Prassl, S. A. Niederer, G. Haase, G. Plank, Anatomically accurate high resolution modeling of human whole heart electromechanics: a strongly scalable algebraic multigrid solver method for nonlinear deformation, Journal of compu- tati...

    2016

  25. [33]

    Bucelli, A

    M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, P. C. Africa, I. Fumagalli, L. Dede’, A. Quar- teroni, A mathematical model that integrates cardiac electrophysiol- ogy, mechanics, and fluid dynamics: Application to the human left heart, International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engi- ...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Dalton, H

    D. Dalton, H. Gao, D. Husmeier, Emulation of cardiac mechanics using graph neural networks, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 401 (2022) 115645

    2022

  27. [35]

    Salvador, F

    M. Salvador, F. Regazzoni, A. Quarteroni, et al., Fast and robust parameter estimation with uncertainty quantification for the cardiac function, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 231 (2023) 107402

    2023

  28. [36]

    Salvador, F

    M. Salvador, F. Kong, M. Peirlinck, D. W. Parker, H. Chubb, A. M. Dubin, A. L. Marsden, Digital twinning of cardiac electrophysiology for congenital heart disease, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 21 (2024) 20230729

    2024

  29. [37]

    Yun, H.-C

    Y. Yun, H.-C. Kim, S. Y. Shin, J. Lee, A. D. Deshpande, C. Kim, Sta- tistical method for prediction of gait kinematics with gaussian process regression, Journal of biomechanics 47 (2014) 186–192

    2014

  30. [38]

    A. B. Tepole, J. Zhang, H. Gomez, Data-driven methods in biome- chanics, Journal of biomechanical engineering 144 (2022) 120301

    2022

  31. [39]

    Quarteroni, P

    A. Quarteroni, P. Gervasio, F. Regazzoni, Combining physics-based and data-driven models: advancing the frontiers of research with sci- entific machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18708 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Peirlinck, J

    M. Peirlinck, J. A. Hurtado, M. K. Rausch, A. B. Tepole, E. Kuhl, A universal material model subroutine for soft matter systems, Engineer- ing with Computers (2024) 1–23

    2024

  33. [41]

    Sahli Costabal, Y

    F. Sahli Costabal, Y. Yang, P. Perdikaris, D. E. Hurtado, E. Kuhl, Physics-informed neural networks for cardiac activation mapping, Frontiers in Physics 8 (2020) 42. 45

    2020

  34. [42]

    Melis, R

    A. Melis, R. H. Clayton, A. Marzo, Bayesian sensitivity analysis of a 1d vascular model with gaussian process emulators, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 33 (2017) e2882

    2017

  35. [43]

    Ranftl, T

    S. Ranftl, T. S. M¨ uller, U. Windberger, G. Brenn, W. von der Linden, A bayesian approach to blood rheological uncertainties in aortic hemo- dynamics, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 39 (2023) e3576

    2023

  36. [44]

    Khatibisepehr, B

    S. Khatibisepehr, B. Huang, S. Khare, Design of inferential sensors in the process industry: A review of bayesian methods, Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 1575–1596

    2013

  37. [45]

    Liu, Bayesian Deep Learning With Random Feature-Based Gaussian Processes, Ph.D

    Y. Liu, Bayesian Deep Learning With Random Feature-Based Gaussian Processes, Ph.D. thesis, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 2023

    2023

  38. [46]

    M. Sena, M. S. Erkilinc, T. Dippon, B. Shariati, R. Emmerich, J. K. Fischer, R. Freund, Bayesian optimization for nonlinear system identi- fication and pre-distortion in cognitive transmitters, Journal of Light- wave Technology 39 (2021) 5008–5020

    2021

  39. [47]

    Dalton, D

    D. Dalton, D. Husmeier, H. Gao, Physics-informed graph neural net- work emulation of soft-tissue mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 417 (2023) 116351

    2023

  40. [48]

    Regazzoni, M

    F. Regazzoni, M. Salvador, L. Ded` e, A. Quarteroni, A machine learning method for real-time numerical simulations of cardiac electromechanics, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 393 (2022) 114825

    2022

  41. [49]

    Cicci, S

    L. Cicci, S. Fresca, A. Manzoni, A. Quarteroni, Efficient approxima- tion of cardiac mechanics through reduced-order modeling with deep learning-based operator approximation, International Journal for Nu- merical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 40 (2024) e3783

    2024

  42. [50]

    Liang, M

    L. Liang, M. Liu, J. Elefteriades, W. Sun, Synergistic integration of deep neural networks and finite element method with applications of nonlinear large deformation biomechanics, Computer Methods in Ap- plied Mechanics and Engineering 416 (2023) 116347. 46

    2023

  43. [51]

    Maher, N

    G. Maher, N. Wilson, A. Marsden, Accelerating cardiovascular model building with convolutional neural networks, Medical & biological en- gineering & computing 57 (2019) 2319–2335

    2019

  44. [52]

    Su, J.-M

    B. Su, J.-M. Zhang, H. Zou, D. Ghista, T. T. Le, C. Chin, Generating wall shear stress for coronary artery in real-time using neural networks: Feasibility and initial results based on idealized models, Computers in biology and medicine 126 (2020) 104038

    2020

  45. [53]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, T. Brox, U-net: Convolutional net- works for biomedical image segmentation, in: Medical Image Comput- ing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th Interna- tional Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 18, ...

    2015

  46. [54]

    Y. H. Liu, Feature extraction and image recognition with convolutional neural networks, in: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1087, IOP Publishing, 2018, p. 062032

    2018

  47. [55]

    Y. Chen, H. Jiang, C. Li, X. Jia, P. Ghamisi, Deep feature extraction and classification of hyperspectral images based on convolutional neu- ral networks, IEEE transactions on geoscience and remote sensing 54 (2016) 6232–6251

    2016

  48. [56]

    Sveinsson Cepero, S

    N. Sveinsson Cepero, S. C. Shadden, Seqseg: Learning local segments for automatic vascular model construction, Annals of Biomedical En- gineering (2024) 1–22

    2024

  49. [57]

    P. Du, M. H. Parikh, X. Fan, X.-Y. Liu, J.-X. Wang, Conditional neural field latent diffusion model for generating spatiotemporal turbulence, Nature Communications 15 (2024) 10416

    2024

  50. [58]

    Kadry, S

    K. Kadry, S. Gupta, J. Sogbadji, M. Schaap, K. Petersen, T. Mizukami, C. Collet, F. R. Nezami, E. R. Edelman, A diffusion model for simu- lation ready coronary anatomy with morpho-skeletal control, in: Eu- ropean Conference on Computer Vision, Springer, 2024, pp. 396–412

    2024

  51. [59]

    Y. Guo, Y. Li, L. Chen, D. Sui, Y. Chen, S. Li, A diffusion model approach for solving the inverse problem between cardiac electrical- physiology and electrocardiograph, in: 2024 IEEE International Con- 47 ference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), IEEE, 2024, pp. 3244–3247

    2024

  52. [60]

    Kissas, Y

    G. Kissas, Y. Yang, E. Hwuang, W. R. Witschey, J. A. Detre, P. Perdikaris, Machine learning in cardiovascular flows modeling: Pre- dicting arterial blood pressure from non-invasive 4d flow mri data using physics-informed neural networks, Computer Methods in Applied Me- chanics...

    2020

  53. [61]

    Buoso, T

    S. Buoso, T. Joyce, S. Kozerke, Personalising left-ventricular biophys- ical models of the heart using parametric physics-informed neural net- works, Medical Image Analysis 71 (2021) 102066

    2021

  54. [62]

    Caforio, F

    F. Caforio, F. Regazzoni, S. Pagani, E. Karabelas, C. Augustin, G. Haase, G. Plank, A. Quarteroni, Physics-informed neural network estimation of material properties in soft tissue nonlinear biomechanical models, Computational Mechanics (2024) 1–27

    2024

  55. [63]

    Arzani, J.-X

    A. Arzani, J.-X. Wang, R. M. D’Souza, Uncovering near-wall blood flow from sparse data with physics-informed neural networks, Physics of Fluids 33 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    P. Perdikaris, Probabilistic data fusion and physics-informed machine learning: A new paradigm for modeling under uncertainty, and its application to accelerating the discovery of new materials., Technical Report, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States), 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, N. Ahmadi, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks and extensions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16806 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Garay, J

    J. Garay, J. Dunstan, S. Uribe, F. S. Costabal, Physics-informed neural networks for parameter estimation in blood flow models, Computers in Biology and Medicine 178 (2024) 108706

    2024

  59. [67]

    H. Hu, L. Qi, X. Chao, Physics-informed neural networks (pinn) for computational solid mechanics: Numerical frameworks and applica- tions, Thin-Walled Structures (2024) 112495. 48

    2024

  60. [68]

    Haghighat, M

    E. Haghighat, M. Raissi, A. Moure, H. Gomez, R. Juanes, A deep learning framework for solution and discovery in solid mechanics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.02751 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Haghighat, M

    E. Haghighat, M. Raissi, A. Moure, H. Gomez, R. Juanes, A physics- informed deep learning framework for inversion and surrogate modeling in solid mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En- gineering 379 (2021) 113741

    2021

  62. [70]

    Aghaee, M

    A. Aghaee, M. O. Khan, Pinning down the accuracy of physics- informed neural networks under laminar and turbulent-like aortic blood flow conditions, Computers in Biology and Medicine 185 (2025) 109528

    2025

  63. [71]

    D. H. Pak, M. Liu, T. Kim, L. Liang, A. Caballero, J. Onofrey, S. S. Ahn, Y. Xu, R. McKay, W. Sun, et al., Patient-specific heart geometry modeling for solid biomechanics using deep learning, IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Saleh, M

    M. Saleh, M. Sommersperger, N. Navab, F. Tombari, Physics-encoded graph neural networks for deformation prediction under contact, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03466 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Salehi, D

    Y. Salehi, D. Giannacopoulos, Physgnn: A physics–driven graph neural network based model for predicting soft tissue deformation in image– guided neurosurgery, Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems 35 (2022) 37282–37296

    2022

  66. [74]

    Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    A. Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  67. [75]

    J. Liu, G. P. Ong, X. Chen, Graphsage-based traffic speed forecasting for segment network with sparse data, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23 (2020) 1755–1766

    2020

  68. [76]

    J. Oh, K. Cho, J. Bruna, Advancing graphsage with a data-driven node sampling, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12935 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Hamilton, Z

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, J. Leskovec, Inductive representation learning on large graphs, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017). 49

    2017

  70. [78]

    S. Gao, H. Zhou, Y. Gao, X. Zhuang, Bayeseg: Bayesian modeling for medical image segmentation with interpretable generalizability, Medi- cal Image Analysis 89 (2023) 102889

    2023

  71. [79]

    Zhuang, Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation combining multi-source images, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 41 (2018) 2933–2946

    X. Zhuang, Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation combining multi-source images, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 41 (2018) 2933–2946

    2018

  72. [80]

    Karim, L.-E

    R. Karim, L.-E. Blake, J. Inoue, Q. Tao, S. Jia, R. J. Housden, P. Bha- girath, J.-L. Duval, M. Varela, J. M. Behar, et al., Algorithms for left atrial wall segmentation and thickness–evaluation on an open-source ct and mri image database, Medical image analysis 50 (2018) 36–53

    2018

  73. [81]

    Tobon-Gomez, A

    C. Tobon-Gomez, A. J. Geers, J. Peters, J. Weese, K. Pinto, R. Karim, M. Ammar, A. Daoudi, J. Margeta, Z. Sandoval, et al., Benchmark for algorithms segmenting the left atrium from 3d ct and mri datasets, IEEE transactions on medical imaging 34 (2015) 1460–1473

    2015

  74. [82]

    J. M. Wolterink, T. Leiner, B. D. De Vos, J.-L. Coatrieux, B. M. Kelm, S. Kondo, R. A. Salgado, R. Shahzad, H. Shu, M. Snoeren, et al., An evaluation of automatic coronary artery calcium scoring methods with cardiac ct using the orcascore framework, Medical physics 43 (2016) 2361–2373

    2016

  75. [83]

    Updegrove, N

    A. Updegrove, N. M. Wilson, J. Merkow, H. Lan, A. L. Marsden, S. C. Shadden, Simvascular: an open source pipeline for cardiovascular sim- ulation, Annals of biomedical engineering 45 (2017) 525–541

    2017

  76. [84]

    Hang, Tetgen, a delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator, ACM Trans

    S. Hang, Tetgen, a delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator, ACM Trans. Math. Softw 41 (2015) 11

    2015

  77. [85]

    Ar´ ostica, D

    R. Ar´ ostica, D. Nolte, A. Brown, A. Gebauer, E. Karabelas, J. Jilberto, M. Salvador, M. Bucelli, R. Piersanti, K. Osouli, et al., A software benchmark for cardiac elastodynamics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 435 (2025) 117485

    2025

  78. [86]

    L. Shi, I. Y. Chen, V. Vedula, Personalized multiscale modeling of left atrial mechanics and blood flow, 2025. in preparation. 50

    2025

  79. [87]

    J. Liu, A. L. Marsden, A unified continuum and variational multiscale formulation for fluids, solids, and fluid–structure interaction, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 337 (2018) 549–597

    2018

  80. [88]

    G. A. Holzapfel, R. W. Ogden, Constitutive modelling of passive my- ocardium: a structurally based framework for material characteriza- tion, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 367 (2009) 3445–3475

    2009

  81. [89]

    D. R. Nolan, A. L. Gower, M. Destrade, R. W. Ogden, J. McGarry, A robust anisotropic hyperelastic formulation for the modelling of soft tissue, Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials 39 (2014) 48–60

    2014

  82. [90]

    J. D. Bayer, R. C. Blake, G. Plank, N. A. Trayanova, A novel rule-based algorithm for assigning myocardial fiber orientation to computational heart models, Annals of biomedical engineering 40 (2012) 2243–2254

    2012

  83. [91]

    P. Y. Simard, D. Steinkraus, J. C. Platt, et al., Best practices for convolutional neural networks applied to visual document analysis., in: Icdar, volume 3, Edinburgh, 2003

    2003

  84. [92]

    J. J. Beauchamp, J. S. Olson, Corrections for bias in regression esti- mates after logarithmic transformation, Ecology 54 (1973) 1403–1407

    1973

  85. [93]

    URL: https://www

    MSD Manual, Normal pressures in the heart and great vessels, 2024. URL: https://www. msdmanuals.com/en-nz/professional/multimedia/table/ normal-pressures-in-the-heart-and-great-vessels , [Accessed September 4, 2024]

    2024

  86. [94]

    C. Zhu, V. Vedula, D. Parker, N. Wilson, S. Shadden, A. Marsden, svfsi: a multiphysics package for integrated cardiac modeling, Journal of Open Source Software 7 (2022) 4118

    2022

  87. [95]

    Deshai, A

    N. Deshai, A. Ambikapathy, R. Kumar, Deep Learning And Its Appli- cations, Cipher Publisher, 2024

    2024

  88. [96]

    Huang, J

    L. Huang, J. Qin, Y. Zhou, F. Zhu, L. Liu, L. Shao, Normalization tech- niques in training dnns: Methodology, analysis and application, IEEE 51 transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45 (2023) 10173–10196

    2023

  89. [97]

    Huang, Normalization Techniques in Deep Learning, Springer, 2022

    L. Huang, Normalization Techniques in Deep Learning, Springer, 2022

    2022

  90. [98]

    G. E. Hinton, Learning multiple layers of representation, Trends in cognitive sciences 11 (2007) 428–434

    2007

  91. [99]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, G. Hinton, Deep learning, nature 521 (2015) 436–444

    2015

  92. [100]

    P. J. M. Ali, R. H. Faraj, E. Koya, P. J. M. Ali, R. H. Faraj, Data normalization and standardization: a technical report, Mach Learn Tech Rep 1 (2014) 1–6

    2014

  93. [101]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, Y. Bengio, Deep learning, vol- ume 1, MIT press Cambridge, 2016

    2016

  94. [102]

    G. E. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, S. D. Wang, Transforming auto-encoders, in: Artificial Neural Networks and Machine Learning–ICANN 2011: 21st International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, Espoo, Finland, June 14-17, 2011, Proceedings, Part I 21, Springer, 2011, pp. 44–51

    2011

  95. [103]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition, in: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  96. [104]

    S. Kou, L. Caballero, R. Dulgheru, D. Voilliot, C. De Sousa, G. Kachar- ava, G. D. Athanassopoulos, D. Barone, M. Baroni, N. Cardim, et al., Echocardiographic reference ranges for normal cardiac chamber size: results from the norre study, European Heart Journal–Cardiovascular ...

    2014

  97. [105]

    normal values

    N. Kawel-Boehm, S. J. Hetzel, B. Ambale-Venkatesh, G. Captur, C. W. Chin, C. J. Fran¸ cois, M. Jerosch-Herold, J. M. Luu, Z. Raisi-Estabragh, J. Starekova, et al., Reference ranges (“normal values”) for cardiovas- cular magnetic resonance (cmr) in adults and children: 2025 upd...

    2025

  98. [106]

    S. A. CHEEMA, A. Jalal, N. FEROZE, J. S. Khan, Dimensions of mitral valve of normal human hearts in pakistani subjects, Pakistan Heart Journal 29 (1996)

    1996

  99. [107]

    D. W. Kitzman, D. G. Scholz, P. T. Hagen, D. M. Ilstrup, W. D. Edwards, Age-related changes in normal human hearts during the first 10 decades of life. part ii (maturity): a quantitative anatomic study of 765 specimens from subjects 20 to 99 years old, in: Mayo Clinic Proceedi...

    1988

  100. [108]

    S. Wold, K. Esbensen, P. Geladi, Principal component analysis, Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems 2 (1987) 37–52

    1987

  101. [109]

    Kherif, A

    F. Kherif, A. Latypova, Principal component analysis, in: Machine learning, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 209–225

    2020

  102. [110]

    Greenacre, P

    M. Greenacre, P. J. Groenen, T. Hastie, A. I. d’Enza, A. Markos, E. Tuzhilina, Principal component analysis, Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2 (2022) 100

    2022

  103. [111]

    Mrowca, C

    D. Mrowca, C. Zhuang, E. Wang, N. Haber, L. F. Fei-Fei, J. Tenen- baum, D. L. Yamins, Flexible neural representation for physics predic- tion, Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  104. [112]

    Y. Li, J. Wu, R. Tedrake, J. B. Tenenbaum, A. Torralba, Learning particle dynamics for manipulating rigid bodies, deformable objects, and fluids, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01566 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Moln´ ar, L

    S. Moln´ ar, L. Tam´ as, Representation learning for point clouds with variational autoencoders, in: European conference on computer vision, Springer, 2022, pp. 727–737

    2022

  106. [114]

    Girin, S

    L. Girin, S. Leglaive, X. Bie, J. Diard, T. Hueber, X. Alameda-Pineda, Dynamical variational autoencoders: A comprehensive review, arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.12595 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Wang, G. Lin, V. C. H. Nicholas, Z. Shen, C. Miao, Starnet: Style-aware 3d point cloud generation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15805 (2023). 53

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Motiwale, W

    S. Motiwale, W. Zhang, M. S. Sacks, High-speed high-fidelity cardiac simulations using a neural network finite element approach, in: Inter- national Conference on Functional Imaging and Modeling of the Heart, Springer, 2023, pp. 537–544

    2023

  109. [117]

    Motiwale, W

    S. Motiwale, W. Zhang, R. Feldmeier, M. S. Sacks, A neural network finite element approach for high speed cardiac mechanics simulations, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 427 (2024) 117060

    2024

  110. [118]

    Goodbrake, S

    C. Goodbrake, S. Motiwale, M. S. Sacks, A neural network finite el- ement method for contact mechanics, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 419 (2024) 116671

    2024

  111. [119]

    J. C. Simo, R. L. Taylor, Quasi-incompressible finite elasticity in prin- cipal stretches. continuum basis and numerical algorithms, Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering 85 (1991) 273–310. Appendix A. Passive mechanics formulation Let ΩXΩXΩX and ΩxΩxΩx be boun...

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.