pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.08822 · v1 · pith:66OICSTNnew · submitted 2024-11-13 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.NA· math.NA

A probabilistic reduced-order modeling framework for patient-specific cardio-mechanical analysis

Robin Willems , Peter F\"orster , Sebastian Sch\"ops , Olaf van der Sluis , Clemens V. Verhoosel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.NAmath.NA
keywords reduced-order modelingprobabilistic modelingcardio-mechanical analysisBayesian inferenceGaussian processpatient-specific modelingisogeometric analysisuncertainty quantification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Probabilistic calibration of correction factors in a one-fiber model enables fast, uncertainty-aware predictions for patient-specific cardiac mechanics.

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

This paper introduces a reduced-order modeling framework that combines a fast generalized one-fiber model with probabilistic methods to make patient-specific cardio-mechanical simulations practical for clinical settings. Correction factors that account for patient-specific features such as geometry variations are calibrated in an offline stage through Bayesian inference using data from a full-order isogeometric cardiac model. In the online stage a Gaussian process predicts the factors for new geometries and supplies both the mechanical output and uncertainty intervals. The framework is tested on idealized left-ventricle shapes and on scan-based geometries. The work addresses the barrier that full cardiac models are too slow for routine use while the uncertainty measures indicate when results can be trusted.

Core claim

The framework employs a generalized one-fiber model that incorporates correction factors to emulate patient-specific attributes. Bayesian inference calibrates these factors on training data generated by a full-order isogeometric cardiac model during the offline stage. A Gaussian process then predicts the correction factors for geometries absent from the training set in the online stage, delivering accurate predictions together with credibility intervals that quantify trustworthiness.

What carries the argument

The generalized one-fiber model with correction factors that are calibrated offline by Bayesian inference and predicted online by a Gaussian process.

If this is right

  • Accurate online predictions are obtained when adequate full-order model training data is available.
  • Uncertainty bands supplied by the framework indicate the trustworthiness of each prediction.
  • Large uncertainty bands signal that the training data set should be expanded.
  • The same workflow applies to both idealized and scan-based left-ventricle geometries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be coupled with real-time imaging pipelines to support intra-procedural cardiac assessment if the uncertainty bands remain narrow.
  • Comparable correction-factor calibration might reduce computational cost in other biomechanical domains that already possess reduced one-dimensional models.
  • The uncertainty output could be used to drive adaptive selection of new full-order training cases, improving efficiency without manual intervention.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized one-fiber model with correction factors can sufficiently emulate patient-specific attributes such as local geometry variations when the factors are calibrated on training data from the full-order isogeometric cardiac model.

What would settle it

A new full-order simulation on an unseen geometry whose result lies outside the ROM uncertainty band or whose error greatly exceeds the band width would indicate the claim does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08822 by Clemens V. Verhoosel, Olaf van der Sluis, Peter F\"orster, Robin Willems, Sebastian Sch\"ops.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the considered full-order cardiac model. Patient-specific input (circles) is mapped on patient-specific output (diamonds) by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the developed ROM framework. The framework considers the same input (circles) as the FOM (Figure 1) on which it is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Schematic representation of the isogeometric cardiac model, illustrating the coupling between the 0D and 3D model components. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between the nonlinear rotational-symmetric (nonlinear rsym.) function proposed by Arts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example illustrating sequential learning using a Gaussian process. (a) The initial fit between the GP prediction and only two observations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of Bayes’ rule (20) with a single parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Illustration of the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Proposals in the Markov chain are accepted or rejected based on a probabilistic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parametrized left ventricle geometry defined in prolate coordinates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Contour plot of the left ventricle diameter at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Hemodynamics results of the full-order IGA model for each ellipsoidal geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Markov chains of the four correction factors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Hemodynamic model results for the 6th cardiac cycle of geometry g5, obtained using the full-order IGA model and the calibrated generalized one-fiber model. The FOM results show the 95% credible intervals corresponding to the assigned uncertainty in Section 5.3. The ROM results obtained from the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm show the 95% credible intervals of the correction factor posteriors. Results are v… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Gaussian process results of the predicted correction factors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Gaussian process results of the predicted correction factors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Gaussian process for the correction factors plotted along the two characteristic lines, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between the Bayesian inference result and the Gaussian process prediction of the correction factors for geometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Results of the singular value decomposition (SVD) based on synthetic population data with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Graphical representation of a patient-specific NURBS geometry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Corner plot of the modal coefficients, c = [c1, c2, c3, c4], resulting from the singular value decomposition (SVD). The initial SVD data set consists of n pop = 200 geometries, of which each modal coefficient is plotted. A convex hull, G chull, with 27 boundary points is determined such that approximately 90% of the points are either on or inside the convex hull. The colors denote whether a synthetic geom… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison between the ROM framework predictions and the FOM results for two patient-specific geometries, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison between the ROM framework prediction and the FOM results for the patient-specific scan geometry, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cardio-mechanical models can be used to support clinical decision-making. Unfortunately, the substantial computational effort involved in many cardiac models hinders their application in the clinic, despite the fact that they may provide valuable information. In this work, we present a probabilistic reduced-order modeling (ROM) framework to dramatically reduce the computational effort of such models while providing a credibility interval. In the online stage, a fast-to-evaluate generalized one-fiber model is considered. This generalized one-fiber model incorporates correction factors to emulate patient-specific attributes, such as local geometry variations. In the offline stage, Bayesian inference is used to calibrate these correction factors on training data generated using a full-order isogeometric cardiac model (FOM). A Gaussian process is used in the online stage to predict the correction factors for geometries that are not in the training data. The proposed framework is demonstrated using two examples. The first example considers idealized left-ventricle geometries, for which the behavior of the ROM framework can be studied in detail. In the second example, the ROM framework is applied to scan-based geometries, based on which the application of the ROM framework in the clinical setting is discussed. The results for the two examples convey that the ROM framework can provide accurate online predictions, provided that adequate FOM training data is available. The uncertainty bands provided by the ROM framework give insight into the trustworthiness of its results. Large uncertainty bands can be considered as an indicator for the further population of the training data set.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a probabilistic reduced-order modeling (ROM) framework for patient-specific cardio-mechanical analysis. In the offline stage, Bayesian inference calibrates correction factors in a generalized one-fiber model using training data from a full-order isogeometric cardiac model (FOM). In the online stage, a Gaussian process interpolates the correction factors for new geometries to enable fast predictions accompanied by uncertainty bands. The approach is demonstrated on two examples: idealized left-ventricle geometries and scan-based geometries.

Significance. If the correction-factor parameterization is shown to be sufficiently expressive, the framework could enable routine clinical use of detailed cardiac models by reducing computational cost while supplying credibility intervals that flag when additional training data is needed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the results for the two examples convey that the ROM framework can provide accurate online predictions' is unsupported by any reported error metrics, cross-validation statistics, or quantitative comparison of ROM versus FOM outputs on held-out geometries; without these the central accuracy assertion cannot be evaluated.
  2. [The generalized one-fiber model] The generalized one-fiber model with correction factors (described in the workflow): the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen (modest) set of correction factors can absorb local 3D effects such as wall-thickness variation, curvature, and fiber dispersion for geometries outside the training set; any systematic mismatch would propagate directly into both the point predictions and the reported uncertainty bands.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects regarding the presentation of results and the expressiveness of the correction factors. We address each point below and outline the revisions we intend to make to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'the results for the two examples convey that the ROM framework can provide accurate online predictions' is unsupported by any reported error metrics, cross-validation statistics, or quantitative comparison of ROM versus FOM outputs on held-out geometries; without these the central accuracy assertion cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree with this observation. The abstract makes a qualitative statement about accuracy that would be more convincing with quantitative support. In the revised manuscript, we will report specific error metrics (e.g., mean relative errors in displacement and stress fields), cross-validation results, and comparisons on held-out geometries in both the abstract and the results section. This will provide a clear basis for evaluating the framework's predictive accuracy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [The generalized one-fiber model] The generalized one-fiber model with correction factors (described in the workflow): the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen (modest) set of correction factors can absorb local 3D effects such as wall-thickness variation, curvature, and fiber dispersion for geometries outside the training set; any systematic mismatch would propagate directly into both the point predictions and the reported uncertainty bands.

    Authors: The correction factors are calibrated using Bayesian inference against full-order model data that inherently includes these 3D effects. The Gaussian process then provides predictions for unseen geometries based on this calibration. Our examples demonstrate the framework's performance on both idealized and scan-based geometries, with uncertainty bands indicating trustworthiness. However, we acknowledge that a more explicit analysis of how individual correction factors capture specific effects like fiber dispersion would be beneficial. We will add a dedicated discussion and, if feasible, supplementary analysis in the revision to address this. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; calibration on independent FOM data and GP interpolation are standard non-reductive steps

full rationale

The paper's offline stage fits correction factors via Bayesian inference directly to FOM snapshots; the online stage then uses an independent Gaussian process to interpolate those factors for new geometries. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and the one-fiber model plus correction factors is presented as an explicit modeling choice rather than derived from the target result. The framework is therefore self-contained against external FOM benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the domain assumption that a one-fiber model plus correction factors can approximate full-order behavior, plus the practical requirement of sufficient FOM training data. No free parameters are explicitly named beyond the correction factors themselves, which are fitted via Bayesian inference.

free parameters (1)
  • correction factors
    Calibrated via Bayesian inference on FOM training data to emulate patient-specific geometry variations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The generalized one-fiber model can be adjusted with correction factors to match FOM behavior for patient-specific attributes.
    This premise underpins both the offline calibration and the online prediction stages.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5816 in / 1257 out tokens · 36441 ms · 2026-05-23T17:09:46.340366+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    N. A. Trayanova, J. J. Rice, Cardiac Electromechanical Models: From Cell to Organ, Frontiers in Physiology 2, publisher: Frontiers (Aug. 2011). doi:10.3389/fphys.2011.00043

    work page doi:10.3389/fphys.2011.00043 2011

  2. [2]

    W. Sun, C. Martin, T. Pham, Computational Modeling of Cardiac Valve Function and Intervention, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 16 (V olume 16, 2014) (2014) 53–76, publisher: Annual Reviews.doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104517

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-104517 2014

  3. [3]

    S. A. Niederer, J. Lumens, N. A. Trayanova, Computational models in cardiology, Nature Reviews Cardiology 16 (2) (2019) 100–111, number: 2 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/s41569-018-0104-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41569-018-0104-y 2019

  4. [4]

    E. Sung, S. Etoz, Y . Zhang, N. A. Trayanova, Whole-heart ventricular arrhythmia modeling moving forward: Mechanistic insights and translational applications, Biophysics Reviews 2 (3) (2021) 031304. doi:10.1063/5.0058050

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0058050 2021

  5. [5]

    A. G. W. de Lepper, C. M. A. Buck, M. van ‘t Veer, W. Huberts, F. N. van de V osse, L. R. C. Dekker, From evidence-based medicine to digital twin technology for predicting ventricular tachycardia in ischaemic cardiomyopathy, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 19 (194) (2022) 20220317, publisher: Royal Society. doi:10.1098/rsif.2022.0317

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2022.0317 2022

  6. [6]

    Aguado-Sierra, A

    J. Aguado-Sierra, A. Krishnamurthy, C. Villongco, J. Chuang, E. Howard, M. J. Gonzales, J. Omens, D. E. Krummen, S. Narayan, R. C. P. Kerckhoffs, A. D. McCulloch, Patient-specific modeling of dyssynchronous heart failure: a case study, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107 (1) (2011) 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.06.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2011.06.014 2011

  7. [7]

    N. H. L. Kuijpers, E. Hermeling, P. H. M. Bovendeerd, T. Delhaas, F. W. Prinzen, Modeling Cardiac Electromechanics and Mechanoelectrical Coupling in Dyssynchronous and Failing Hearts, Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 5 (2) (2012) 159–169. doi:10.1007/ s12265-012-9346-y

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    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 (1) (2016) 11437, number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/ncomms11437

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms11437 2016

  9. [9]

    Willems, K

    R. Willems, K. L. P. M. Janssens, P. H. M. Bovendeerd, C. V . Verhoosel, O. van der Sluis, An isogeometric analysis framework for ventricular cardiac mechanics, Computational Mechanics 73 (3) (2024) 465–506. doi:10.1007/s00466-023-02376-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00466-023-02376-x 2024

  10. [10]

    Willems, L

    R. Willems, L. Verberne, O. van der Sluis, C. V . Verhoosel, Echocardiogram-based ventricular isogeometric cardiac analysis using multi-patch fitted NURBS, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 425 (2024) 116958. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.116958

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2024.116958 2024

  11. [11]

    Willems, E

    R. Willems, E. Kruithof, K. L. P. M. Janssens, M. J. M. Cluitmans, O. van der Sluis, P. H. M. Bovendeerd, C. V . Verhoosel, Isogeometric- Mechanics-Driven Electrophysiology Simulations of Ventricular Tachycardia, in: O. Bernard, P. Clarysse, N. Duchateau, J. Ohayon, M. Vial- lon (Eds.), Functional Imaging and Modeling of the Heart, Lecture Notes in Comput...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35302-4 2023

  12. [12]

    Manzoni, D

    A. Manzoni, D. Bonomi, A. Quarteroni, Reduced Order Modeling for Cardiac Electrophysiology and Mechanics: New Methodolo- gies, Challenges and Perspectives, in: D. Bo ffi, L. F. Pavarino, G. Rozza, S. Scacchi, C. Vergara (Eds.), Mathematical and Numer- ical Modeling of the Cardiovascular System and Applications, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 201...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96649-6_6 2018

  13. [13]

    Peherstorfer, K

    B. Peherstorfer, K. Willcox, M. Gunzburger, Survey of Multifidelity Methods in Uncertainty Propagation, Inference, and Optimization, SIAM Review 60 (3) (2018) 550–591, publisher: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. doi:10.1137/16M1082469

    work page doi:10.1137/16m1082469 2018

  14. [14]

    Y . C. Liang, H. P. Lee, S. P. Lim, W. Z. Lin, K. H. Lee, C. G. Wu, PROPER ORTHOGONAL DECOMPOSITION AND ITS APPLICA- TIONS—PART I: THEORY, Journal of Sound and Vibration 252 (3) (2002) 527–544. doi:10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041. 36

    work page doi:10.1006/jsvi.2001.4041 2002

  15. [15]

    Quarteroni, A

    A. Quarteroni, A. Manzoni, F. Negri, Reduced Basis Methods for Partial Differential Equations, V ol. 92 of UNITEXT, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15431-2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15431-2 2016

  16. [16]

    Boulakia, E

    M. Boulakia, E. Schenone, J.-F. Gerbeau, Reduced-order modeling for cardiac electrophysiology. Application to parameter identification, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering 28 (6-7) (2012) 727–744. doi:10.1002/cnm.2465

    work page doi:10.1002/cnm.2465 2012

  17. [17]

    R. R. Rama, S. Skatulla, Towards real-time modelling of passive and active behaviour of the human heart using PODI-based model reduction, Computers & Structures 232 (2020) 105897. doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.01.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2018.01.002 2020

  18. [18]

    Gurney, An Introduction to Neural Networks, CRC Press, London, 2017

    K. Gurney, An Introduction to Neural Networks, CRC Press, London, 2017. doi:10.1201/9781315273570

    work page doi:10.1201/9781315273570 2017

  19. [19]

    C. K. Williams, C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine learning, V ol. 2, MA: MIT press, Cambridge, 2006

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G. E. Karniadakis, Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 378 (2019) 686–707. doi:10.1016/j.jcp. 2018.10.045

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp 2019

  21. [21]

    T. Arts, P. H. Bovendeerd, F. W. Prinzen, R. S. Reneman, Relation between left ventricular cavity pressure and volume and systolic fiber stress and strain in the wall, Biophysical Journal 59 (1) (1991) 93–102. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(91)82201-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(91)82201-9 1991

  22. [22]

    T. Arts, T. Delhaas, P. Bovendeerd, X. Verbeek, F. W. Prinzen, Adaptation to mechanical load determines shape and properties of heart and circulation: the CircAdapt model, American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology 288 (4) (2005) H1943–H1954, publisher: American Physiological Society. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00444.2004

    work page doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00444.2004 2005

  23. [23]

    T. Arts, R. S. Reneman, P. C. Veenstra, A model of the mechanics of the left ventricle, Annals of Biomedical Engineering 7 (3) (1979) 299–318. doi:10.1007/BF02364118

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02364118 1979

  24. [24]

    A. V . Hill, The heat of shortening and the dynamic constants of muscle, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B - Biological Sciences 126 (843) (1997) 136–195, publisher: Royal Society. doi:10.1098/rspb.1938.0050

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.1938.0050 1997

  25. [25]

    Lumens, T

    J. Lumens, T. Delhaas, B. Kirn, T. Arts, Three-Wall Segment (TriSeg) Model Describing Mechanics and Hemodynamics of Ventricular Interaction, Annals of Biomedical Engineering 37 (11) (2009) 2234–2255. doi:10.1007/s10439-009-9774-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10439-009-9774-2 2009

  26. [26]

    P. H. M. Bovendeerd, Modeling of cardiac growth and remodeling of myofiber orientation, Journal of Biomechanics 45 (5) (2012) 872–881. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.11.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.11.029 2012

  27. [27]

    P. R. Huntjens, J. Walmsley, S. Ploux, P. Bordachar, F. W. Prinzen, T. Delhaas, J. Lumens, Influence of left ventricular lead position relative to scar location on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a model study, EP Europace 16 (suppl 4) (2014) iv62–iv68. doi:10.1093/ europace/euu231

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    P. H. M. Bovendeerd, P. Borsje, T. Arts, F. N. van De V osse, Dependence of Intramyocardial Pressure and Coronary Flow on Ventricular Load- ing and Contractility: A Model Study, Annals of Biomedical Engineering 34 (12) (2006) 1833–1845.doi:10.1007/s10439-006-9189-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10439-006-9189-2 2006

  29. [29]

    T. Arts, P. C. Veenstra, R. S. Reneman, Epicardial deformation and left ventricular wall mechanisms during ejection in the dog, American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology 243 (3) (1982) H379–H390, publisher: American Physiological Society. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.1982.243.3.H379

    work page doi:10.1152/ajpheart.1982.243.3.h379 1982

  30. [30]

    T. Arts, R. S. Reneman, Dynamics of left ventricular wall and mitral valve mechanics—A model study, Journal of Biomechanics 22 (3) (1989) 261–271. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(89)90093-6

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9290(89)90093-6 1989

  31. [31]

    Dickerson

    P. Golestaneh, M. Taheri, J. Lederer, How many samples are needed to train a deep neural network? (May 2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2405.16696

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Wendland, Scattered Data Approximation, Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

    H. Wendland, Scattered Data Approximation, Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511617539

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511617539 2004

  33. [33]

    E. V . Bonilla, K. Chai, C. Williams, Multi-task Gaussian Process Prediction, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, V ol. 20, Curran Associates, Inc., 2007

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Lambert, A Student’s Guide to Bayesian Statistics, 1st Edition, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018

    B. Lambert, A Student’s Guide to Bayesian Statistics, 1st Edition, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Biehler, M

    J. Biehler, M. W. Gee, W. A. Wall, Towards e fficient uncertainty quantification in complex and large-scale biomechanical problems based on a Bayesian multi-fidelity scheme, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology 14 (3) (2015) 489–513. doi:10.1007/ s10237-014-0618-0

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Agostinelli, L

    C. Agostinelli, L. Greco, Weighted likelihood in Bayesian inference, in: 46th Scientific Meeting of the Italian Statistical Society, 2012, pp. 746–757

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, X.-L. Meng (Eds.), Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Chapman and Hall /CRC, New York, 2011. doi:10.1201/b10905

    work page doi:10.1201/b10905 2011

  38. [38]

    Haario, E

    H. Haario, E. Saksman, J. Tamminen, An adaptive Metropolis algorithm, Bernoulli 7 (2) (2001) 223–242, publisher: Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    P. H. M. Bovendeerd, W. Kroon, T. Delhaas, Determinants of left ventricular shear strain, American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology 297 (3) (2009) H1058–1068. doi:10.1152/ajpheart.01334.2008

    work page doi:10.1152/ajpheart.01334.2008 2009

  40. [40]

    R. M. Lang, L. P. Badano, V . Mor-Avi, J. Afilalo, A. Armstrong, L. Ernande, F. A. Flachskampf, E. Foster, S. A. Goldstein, T. Kuznetsova, P. Lancellotti, D. Muraru, M. H. Picard, E. R. Rietzschel, L. Rudski, K. T. Spencer, W. Tsang, J.-U. V oigt, Recommendations for Cardiac Chamber Quantification by Echocardiography in Adults: An Update from the American...

    work page doi:10.1093/ehjci/ 2015

  41. [41]

    Galderisi, B

    M. Galderisi, B. Cosyns, T. Edvardsen, N. Cardim, V . Delgado, G. Di Salvo, E. Donal, L. E. Sade, L. Ernande, M. Garbi, J. Grapsa, A. Hagendorff, O. Kamp, J. Magne, C. Santoro, A. Stefanidis, P. Lancellotti, B. Popescu, G. Habib, Reviewers: This document was reviewed by members of the 2016–2018 EACVI Scientific Documents Committee, Standardization of adul...

    work page doi:10.1093/ehjci/jex244 2016

  42. [42]

    R. M. Lang, M. Bierig, R. B. Devereux, F. A. Flachskampf, E. Foster, P. A. Pellikka, M. H. Picard, M. J. Roman, J. Seward, J. S. Shanewise, S. D. Solomon, K. T. Spencer, M. St John Sutton, W. J. Stewart, Recommendations for Chamber Quantification: A Report from the American 37 Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Chambe...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.echo.2005.10.005 2005

  43. [43]

    J. C. Nielsen, I. D. Lytrivi, H. H. Ko, J. Yau, P. Bhatla, I. A. Parness, S. Srivastava, The Accuracy of Echocardiographic Assessment of Left Ventricular Size in Children by the 5 /6 Area × Length (Bullet) Method, Echocardiography 27 (6) (2010) 691–695. doi:10.1111/j. 1540-8175.2009.01120.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j 2010

  44. [44]

    A. M. Anwar, O. I. I. Soliman, F. J. ten Cate, A. Nemes, J. S. McGhie, B. J. Krenning, R.-J. van Geuns, T. W. Galema, M. L. Gelei- jnse, True mitral annulus diameter is underestimated by two-dimensional echocardiography as evidenced by real-time three-dimensional echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging, The International Journal of Cardiovascular ...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10554-006-9181-9 2007

  45. [45]

    de Groot-de Laat, B

    L. de Groot-de Laat, B. Ren, J. S. McGhie, E. J. Wiegers-Groeneweg, O. I. Soliman, A. J. Bogers, M. L. Geleijnse, How to Measure Mitral Annulus Size with Two-Dimensional Transthoracic Echocardiography., J Heart Vasc Dis 1 ((1)) (2019) 100005

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    J. S. B. van Zwieten, G. J. van Zwieten, W. Hoitinga, Nutils (Jan. 2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Quarteroni, T

    A. Quarteroni, T. Lassila, S. Rossi, R. Ruiz-Baier, Integrated Heart—Coupling multiscale and multiphysics models for the simulation of the cardiac function, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 314 (2017) 345–407. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2016.05.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2016.05.031 2017

  48. [48]

    P. H. M. Bovendeerd, T. Arts, J. M. Huyghe, D. H. van Campen, R. S. Reneman, Dependence of local left ventricular wall mechanics on myocardial fiber orientation: A model study, Journal of Biomechanics 25 (10) (1992) 1129–1140.doi:10.1016/0021-9290(92)90069-D . 38

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-9290(92)90069-d 1992