Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A physics-informed neural network trained on raw CT sinogram data estimates cardiovascular flow more accurately and robustly than one trained on reconstructed images, because it never sees the motion artifacts that filtered backprojection i

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:49 UTC pith:YYSRUFPI

load-bearing objection Solid, novel sinogram-domain PINN simulation with a clean advantage over image-based training; main caveat is inverse-crime validation and an abstract that overstates the results. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.03876 v1 pith:YYSRUFPI submitted 2025-11-05 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGphysics.med-ph

Computed Tomography (CT)-derived Cardiovascular Flow Estimation Using Physics-Informed Neural Networks Improves with Sinogram-based Training: A Simulation Study

Jinyuxuan Guo , Gurnoor Singh Khurana , Alejandro Gonzalo Grande , Juan C. del Alamo , Francisco Contijoch This is my paper
classification eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGphysics.med-ph
keywords physics-informed neural networkscomputed tomographysinogramfiltered backprojectionmotion artifactsblood flow estimationpulsed-mode imagingcontrast dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that reconstruction artifacts, not the underlying physics or imaging noise, are the dominant error source in CT-based blood-flow estimation with physics-informed neural networks. It introduces SinoFlow, which trains the network directly on raw sinogram measurements through a time-dependent Radon transform, and compares it to ImageFlow, which trains on standard filtered-backprojection images. In simulations of pulsatile flow through a bifurcating vessel with a hidden obstruction, SinoFlow consistently yields lower concentration and velocity errors across gantry rotation speeds, noise levels, and pulsed-mode acquisition. If correct, this would make non-invasive CT flow assessment feasible at slower rotation speeds and lower dose, and would steer the field toward raw-domain, physics-constrained inference.

Core claim

The central claim is that a PINN that solves directly for concentration and flow fields while matching raw CT sinogram data—rather than reconstructing images first—prevents the network from learning motion artifacts that arise because contrast moves during acquisition. In the paper's simulation study, SinoFlow achieved concentration RMSE around 0.13–0.16 regardless of gantry speed (1–10 Hz), whereas ImageFlow degraded sharply below roughly 4 Hz, matching a Strouhal-derived threshold for when motion corrupts images. SinoFlow also remained more accurate under Poisson-distributed noise and in pulsed-mode imaging, where shorter pulse widths (10 views) outperformed longer ones (50 views) at equal

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the time-dependent Radon transform embedded in the SinoFlow loss: the network predicts a concentration field c(x,y,t), and a predicted sinogram is computed as a line integral over the evolving field with gantry angle θ=θ0+ωt. Matching that predicted sinogram to the measured one replaces the image-space data loss, so the network never sees reconstruction artifacts. A secondary piece is the Strouhal-based criterion (ω_gantry ≫ 2πu/L_c) that predicts when motion artifacts begin to corrupt image-based estimates; the paper uses it to explain the observed ~4 Hz threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the measured CT signal is a simple linear sum of contrast concentration along each X-ray path, but real scanners corrupt that signal with beam hardening, scatter, and partial volume.

What would settle it

Run the two methods on a physical flow phantom with a known pump-driven flow and iodinated contrast under slow rotation and low dose; if ImageFlow matches or beats SinoFlow on real data, the claim that reconstruction artifacts are the dominant error source is falsified. A cheaper simulation test: replace the linear Radon forward model with a polychromatic beam-hardening model; if SinoFlow's advantage disappears, the dependence on the linear assumption is exposed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If SinoFlow is right, CT scanners can estimate blood flow at gantry speeds as low as 1 Hz without the accuracy penalty that destroys ImageFlow, relaxing hardware requirements.
  • Lower-dose acquisitions (low CNR) become more usable, since SinoFlow keeps velocity errors and outlet-flow-ratio errors below ImageFlow at every tested noise level.
  • Pulsed-mode imaging, which reduces dose by turning the beam on and off, is compatible with sinogram-based estimation; using many short pulses (10 views) rather than fewer long ones preserves accuracy even at 15% duty cycle.
  • The Strouhal-style timescale analysis offers a practical rule of thumb: when gantry rotation speed is below ~2πu/L_c, image-based PINN estimation will be unreliable, and sinogram-based training is needed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The simulated advantage depends on a linear monoenergetic forward model; in real CT, beam hardening and scatter make the sinogram a nonlinear function of concentration, so the improvement may shrink unless corrected—a caveat the paper itself flags when suggesting dual-energy or photon-counting CT.
  • A natural next test is a physical flow phantom with known pump flow: if SinoFlow's advantage does not persist when real X-ray physics are present, the claim that reconstruction artifacts dominate would be false.
  • The Strouhal-based threshold could be turned into a general acquisition planning tool: given expected flow velocity and bolus length, choose gantry speed/dose to stay above the threshold, or decide when sinogram-based training is mandatory.
  • Because the PINN also enforces Navier-Stokes physics, SinoFlow may effectively denoise the sinogram; testing whether it recovers accurate flow when only a few sparse projections are available (e.g., limited-angle or sparse-view CT) would probe the limits of the approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SinoFlow, a PINN-based framework that estimates 2D cardiovascular flow directly from raw CT sinogram data by embedding a time-dependent Radon transform in the data loss, and compares it to ImageFlow, which trains on FBP-reconstructed contrast images. In a simulated fan-beam CT of an idealized Y-shaped bifurcation with pulsatile CFD flow, the authors report that SinoFlow yields lower concentration RMSE and lower most velocity-error metrics across gantry rotation speeds, noise levels, and pulsed-mode acquisitions, and they derive a ~3.8 Hz gantry-speed threshold for motion artifacts. The claims are explicitly limited to simulation, with 2D geometry and idealized acquisition listed as limitations.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a useful proof-of-concept: raw-domain PINN training avoids FBP motion artifacts, and the systematic parameter sweeps (seven GRS values, multiple CNR levels, pulse-mode duty cycles) make the internal comparison informative. The paper ships a transparent CFD/PINN setup and a simple Strouhal-based design rule. However, the validation is an inverse-crime setup: SinoFlow's data loss is perfectly consistent with the sinogram generator, while ImageFlow is forced to learn from FBP images. This does not invalidate the internal comparison but strongly limits the transferability of the reported advantage to real CT data. The central comparative claim is also overstated in places, as some metrics favor ImageFlow.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.C.1, §III.D.2, Eqs. (1)–(6); Discussion limitations] The validation is an inverse crime: the simulated sinogram is generated from the CFD concentration via the Beer–Lambert line integral with no static background (Eqs. 1–2), and SinoFlow's data loss (Eq. 6) embeds exactly this line-integral model (Eq. 5). ImageFlow, by contrast, is fed FBP images corrupted by motion artifacts. The comparison therefore guarantees SinoFlow's data term is perfectly consistent with the generator while ImageFlow's is deliberately inconsistent. Real CT sinograms include static tissue/bone attenuation, beam hardening, scatter, and partial-volume effects absent here; if substantial, SinoFlow's forward model is misspecified and the advantage may shrink. This is not addressed in the limitations. Also, the physics loss uses Re fixed to the generator value (§VIII.B). I request an independent forward-model mismatch experiment (e.g., add static background and spectral e
  2. [Abstract; §IV.B; Table 1] The abstract's claim that SinoFlow 'consistently produced lower mean squared error and velocity errors than ImageFlow' is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. Table 1 shows at 4 Hz inlet low-velocity error 0.012 m/s for ImageFlow vs 0.025 m/s for SinoFlow; §IV.B states low-velocity error 'was consistently better for ImageFlow across all tested CNR levels' (Table 2: 0.027 vs 0.078 at CNR=12; 0.009 vs 0.027 at CNR=60). Please qualify the claim to overall RMSE and the majority of metrics, or revise the abstract/conclusion.
  3. [§IV.A; Table 1] The outlet-ratio result is stated inconsistently: text says 'At GRS≥4 Hz, ImageFlow predicts a small imbalance (1.036),' but Table 1 reports ImageFlow outlet ratio = 1.190 (0.987–1.250) at 4 Hz and only 1.034 at 10 Hz. The following sentence 'highly variable and inaccurate for GRS≤4 Hz' also overlaps the 4 Hz condition. Please clarify and correct text/table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A] The sentence 'the difference in RMSE between GRS=10 Hz (0.189) and GRS=1 Hz (0.375) was small' uses numbers that do not match Table 1 (SinoFlow values are 0.127 and 0.159 at 10 and 1 Hz). Please correct the numbers or the intended reference.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and wording: 'evolutuon' (Introduction), 'by by errors' (Introduction), 'time time' (§III.D), 'Addtion' (§VIII.A.1), 'imagedconcentration' (§III.C.2), 'PMP' in Introduction, and inconsistent use of 'frames' vs 'views'.
  3. [§III.E.4] The Strouhal-based threshold derivation is compact; please define all symbols explicitly (L_c, St_flow, omega_flow) and state the 1D reduction from the advection equation so the threshold is reproducible.
  4. [§III.F, Tables 2–3] The statistical section describes n=6 from gantry starting angles, but the pulsed-mode and noise tables do not state the number of replicates or how starting-angle variation enters those experiments. Please specify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

SinoFlow's advantage is partly built into the simulation because its forward model is the same Radon/Beer–Lambert operator used to generate the synthetic sinograms.

specific steps
  1. other [III.C.1 (CT scan simulation, Eqs. 1–2), III.D.2 (SinoFlow forward model, Eq. 5, and data loss, Eq. 6)]
    "CFD-derived concentration fields, c_CFD(x, y, t), were used as the basis to simulate CT scanning. ... the forward rendering operation, i.e., the Radon transform, was added to the inference framework as a hard constraint based on the time-evolving PINN-inferred concentration field, ĝ(s, θ) = ∫_{L(θ)} ĉ[x(s, θ), y(s, θ), t] dl ... Ldata = λ1 Σ [ĝ(s, θ) − g(s, θ)]^2"

    The synthetic 'measured' sinogram is generated from c_CFD via Beer–Lambert line integrals (Eqs. 1–2), which, with µ proportional to the normalized concentration, is the same time-dependent Radon operator encoded in Eq. 5. Therefore SinoFlow's data loss (Eq. 6) is minimized by the exact generative model, while ImageFlow is forced to use FBP images that contain motion artifacts by construction. The headline comparison—SinoFlow avoids FBP errors—is thus partly baked into the synthetic-data generation: no forward-model mismatch, background attenuation, beam hardening, or scatter is tested. Real CT sinograms mix contrast with background attenuation, which the paper itself acknowledges, so the simulated advantage is not an independent confirmation of the forward-model assumptions.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is not circular. Flow inference is a genuine inverse problem: velocities are recovered by minimizing Navier–Stokes, continuity, and advection residuals together with data terms, not by renaming fitted inputs as predictions. The 3.8 Hz threshold is a parameter-free Taylor-expansion/Strouhal estimate from independently prescribed flow parameters, and there is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem. The one significant circularity is in the validation construction: the synthetic sinograms used to test SinoFlow are generated by a Beer–Lambert line-integral model that, under the stated normalization, is the same forward operator SinoFlow embeds in Eq. 5. Hence Eq. 6 is satisfied at the ground-truth concentration by construction, whereas ImageFlow must operate on FBP images that are degraded by design. This 'inverse-crime' setup makes part of SinoFlow's reported advantage a built-in feature of the evaluation rather than an independent test of the forward model's realism. The paper does not simulate the background attenuation, beam hardening, or scatter present in real CT sinograms, and its own discussion notes that conventional sinograms 'mix contrast agent concentration data with background intensity values.' This does not invalidate the velocity-estimation framework, but it does make the central SinoFlow-vs-ImageFlow claim partially circular as a validation of real-world superiority.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; SinoFlow is a computational method. The absolute accuracy numbers are produced under conditions where the estimator's forward model exactly matches the data generator, so the free parameters and domain assumptions above define the conditions under which the reported performance should be expected.

free parameters (5)
  • PINN architecture and optimizer hyperparameters = 10 layers x 200 neurons, SiLU, Adam lr=1e-3, 3e5 iterations
    Selected heuristically and tuned experimentally (Sec. III.D). These values affect the accuracy of both methods and are not derived from data.
  • Loss weights (lambda_0, lambda_1) = lambda_0=1; lambda_1=1/1600
    Chosen experimentally to balance data and physics losses; the optimum depends on the noise level and sampling density, so results are sensitive to this choice.
  • Sinogram spatial sampling points per ray (np) = 1600
    Used to normalize the SinoFlow data loss; affects the stochastic training and the effective weight of the sinogram loss.
  • Contrast injection bolus frequency (beta) = 2 boluses per cardiac cycle
    Chosen to create strong spatiotemporal concentration gradients, which the authors state are necessary for PINN flow inference. Clinical injections may not achieve this patterning.
  • Reynolds number in the physics loss (Re) = 1184
    Fixed to match the CFD ground-truth generator instead of being learned. This gives the PINN exact knowledge of the flow regime, which may overstate performance relative to real unknown flows.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Blood in the simulated vessel behaves as a Newtonian, incompressible fluid governed by the Navier-Stokes equations, and the same equations are embedded in the PINN physics loss.
    Used for CFD ground truth and in L_physics (Appendix VIII.B). Real blood is non-Newtonian in some regimes and flow is three-dimensional.
  • domain assumption Contrast agent is a passive scalar transported by pure advection; Pe ~ 10^7 makes diffusion negligible.
    Used to generate concentration fields and as residual e1. Clinical contrast mixing, dispersion, and injection-site effects may violate this.
  • domain assumption The measured CT sinogram is a linear, monoenergetic Beer-Lambert line integral of contrast concentration, with no beam hardening, scatter, or partial volume.
    SinoFlow's data loss (Eq. 5-6) assumes this exactly. Real CT iodine signal is nonlinear and corrupted by these effects.
  • domain assumption Each projection is acquired instantaneously at a known angle-time mapping theta = theta_0 + omega*t.
    This is the time-dependent Radon transform used by SinoFlow. Real detectors integrate over finite exposure and have additional motion terms.
  • domain assumption The high-gradient oscillatory contrast injection (C_inlet = sin^2(2 St pi t)) can be delivered clinically and remains informative at the imaging site.
    Authors state this pattern was intentionally designed to enable flow inference; clinical constraints and dispersion will reduce gradients.
  • domain assumption Flow is 2D and confined to the axial fan-beam plane; there is no through-plane velocity component.
    The geometry is an idealized Y-bifurcation aligned with the imaging plane; the authors list through-plane flow as a limitation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19309 in / 17483 out tokens · 163893 ms · 2026-08-03T23:49:29.263148+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Background: Non-invasive imaging-based assessment of blood flow plays a critical role in evaluating heart function and structure. Computed Tomography (CT) is a widely-used imaging modality that can robustly evaluate cardiovascular anatomy and function, but direct methods to estimate blood flow velocity from movies of contrast evolution have not been developed. Purpose: This study evaluates the impact of CT imaging on Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINN)-based flow estimation and proposes an improved framework, SinoFlow, which uses sinogram data directly to estimate blood flow. Methods: We generated pulsatile flow fields in an idealized 2D vessel bifurcation using computational fluid dynamics and simulated CT scans with varying gantry rotation speeds, tube currents, and pulse mode imaging settings. We compared the performance of PINN-based flow estimation using reconstructed images (ImageFlow) to SinoFlow. Results: SinoFlow significantly improved flow estimation performance by avoiding propagating errors introduced by filtered backprojection. SinoFlow was robust across all tested gantry rotation speeds and consistently produced lower mean squared error and velocity errors than ImageFlow. Additionally, SinoFlow was compatible with pulsed-mode imaging and maintained higher accuracy with shorter pulse widths. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the potential of SinoFlow for CT-based flow estimation, providing a more promising approach for non-invasive blood flow assessment. The findings aim to inform future applications of PINNs to CT images and provide a solution for image-based estimation, with reasonable acquisition parameters yielding accurate flow estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.03876 by Alejandro Gonzalo Grande, Francisco Contijoch, Gurnoor Singh Khurana, Jinyuxuan Guo, Juan C. del Alamo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flow Simulation Geometry, Velocity Analysis, and Concentration Pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: PINN-based Flow Estimation Approaches In both ImageFlow and SinoFlow, the same image domain PINN is used to predict concentration and flow field movies. However, SinoFlow includes the forward rendering process in the pipeline to gen￾erate a predicted sinogram gpred and therefore calculates a sinogram loss as the data loss, while ImageFlow compares generated concentrations cpred to FBP-reconstructed concent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FBP and PINN-predicted concentration scenes and boxplots of Im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FBP and PINN-predicted concentration scenes and boxplots of Im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pulse Mode Imaging Sinograms and Performance of SinoFlow at dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. VASTO: Simultaneous recovery of vascular geometry and blood flow via differentiable topology optimization

    cs.CE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A differentiable topology optimization framework couples steady incompressible flow and transient advection-diffusion models to jointly reconstruct vascular geometry and blood velocity from CTA sinograms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Transvalvular Flow Rate Determines Prognostic Value of Aortic Valve Area in Aortic Stenosis,

    M. Namasivayam et al., “Transvalvular Flow Rate Determines Prognostic Value of Aortic Valve Area in Aortic Stenosis,” en,Journal of the American College of Car- diology, vol. 75, no. 15, pp. 1758–1769, Apr. 2020, Number: 15,issn: 07351097.doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.046Accessed: Sep. 5, 2023. [Online]. Available:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/p...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.046accessed: 2020

  2. [2]

    Valvular Aortic Stenosis,

    C. M. Otto, “Valvular Aortic Stenosis,” en,Journal of the American College of Car- diology, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 2141–2151, Jun. 2006, Number: 11,issn: 07351097.doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.002Accessed: Sep. 5, 2023. [Online]. Available:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0735109706006176

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.002accessed: 2006

  3. [3]

    Improving Assessment of Aortic Stenosis,

    P. Pibarot and J. G. Dumesnil, “Improving Assessment of Aortic Stenosis,” en,Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 169–180, Jul. 2012, Number: 3, issn: 07351097.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.078Accessed: Sep. 5, 2023. [Online]. Available:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0735109712015185 VIII.E. Impact of PM Imaging P...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.078accessed: 2012

  4. [5]

    Stasis imaging predicts the risk of cardioembolic events related to acute myocardial infarction: The ISBITAMI study,

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez-Gonz´ alez et al., “Stasis imaging predicts the risk of cardioembolic events related to acute myocardial infarction: The ISBITAMI study,” en,Revista Espa˜ nola de Cardiolog ´ ıa (English Edition), vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22–33, Jan. 2025,issn: 18855857. doi:10 . 1016 / j . rec . 2024 . 04 . 007Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available: https...

    2025

  5. [6]

    G. Reiter et al., “Magnetic Resonance–Derived 3-Dimensional Blood Flow Patterns in the Main Pulmonary Artery as a Marker of Pulmonary Hypertension and a Mea- sure of Elevated Mean Pulmonary Arterial Pressure,” en,Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–30, Jul. 2008, Number: 1,issn: 1941-9651, 1942-0080. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.108.7802...

    work page doi:10.1161/circimaging.108.780247accessed: 2008

  6. [7]

    Pulmonary Artery Measurements in Pulmonary Hypertension: The Role of Computed Tomography,

    A. Mahammedi, A. Oshmyansky, P. M. Hassoun, D. R. Thiemann, and S. S. Siegelman, “Pulmonary Artery Measurements in Pulmonary Hypertension: The Role of Computed Tomography,” en,Journal of Thoracic Imaging, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 96–103, Mar. 2013, Number: 2,issn: 0883-5993.doi:10.1097/RTI.0b013e318271c2ebAccessed: Sep. 5,

    work page doi:10.1097/rti.0b013e318271c2ebaccessed: 2013

  7. [8]

    Reduced Left Atrial Rotational Flow Is Independently Associ- ated With Embolic Brain Infarcts,

    M. Spartera et al., “Reduced Left Atrial Rotational Flow Is Independently Associ- ated With Embolic Brain Infarcts,” en,JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1149–1159, Sep. 2023,issn: 1936878X.doi:10 . 1016 / j . jcmg . 2023 . 03 . 006 Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https ://linkinghub. elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1936878X23001493

    2023

  8. [9]

    Contribution of the Diastolic Vortex Ring to Left Ven- tricular Filling,

    P. Mart ´ ınez-Legazpi et al., “Contribution of the Diastolic Vortex Ring to Left Ven- tricular Filling,” en,Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 64, no. 16, pp. 1711–1721, Oct. 2014,issn: 07351097.doi:10 . 1016 / j . jacc . 2014 . 06 . 1205 Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https ://linkinghub. elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0735109...

    2014

  9. [10]

    Diagnostic and prognostic significance of cardiovascular vortex formation,

    A. Kheradvar, C. Rickers, D. Morisawa, M. Kim, G.-R. Hong, and G. Pedrizzetti, “Diagnostic and prognostic significance of cardiovascular vortex formation,” en,Jour- nal of Cardiology, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 403–411, Nov. 2019, Number: 5,issn: 09145087. doi:10 . 1016 / j . jjcc . 2019 . 05 . 005Accessed: Sep. 5, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.e...

    2019

  10. [11]

    2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease,

    J. J. Bax et al., “2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease,” en,Thoracic Surgery, VIII.E. Impact of PM Imaging Parameters on Outlet Flow Estimation PINN-based Flow Estimation in CT page 31

    2017

  11. [12]

    The Clinical Assessment of Intraventricular Flows,

    J. Bermejo, P. Mart ´ ınez-Legazpi, and J. C. Del ´Alamo, “The Clinical Assessment of Intraventricular Flows,” en,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 315– 342, Jan. 2015,issn: 0066-4189, 1545-4479.doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010814- 014728Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://www.annualreviews. org/doi/10.1146/annurev-fluid-0...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-010814- 2015

  12. [13]

    Cardiac CT imaging in coronary artery disease: Current status and future directions,

    Z. Sun, “Cardiac CT imaging in coronary artery disease: Current status and future directions,” en,Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, vol. 2, no. 2, 2012

    2012

  13. [14]

    High-Resolution CT Using MDCT: Comparison of Degree of Motion Artifact Between Volumetric and Axial Methods,

    D. M. Kelly, I. Hasegawa, R. Borders, H. Hatabu, and P. M. Boiselle, “High-Resolution CT Using MDCT: Comparison of Degree of Motion Artifact Between Volumetric and Axial Methods,” en,American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 757–759, Mar. 2004,issn: 0361-803X, 1546-3141.doi:10.2214/ajr.182.3.1820757Accessed: Sep. 18, 2025. [Online]. Availabl...

    work page doi:10.2214/ajr.182.3.1820757accessed: 2004

  14. [15]

    Role of cardiac computed tomography in planning and evaluating percutaneous transluminal septal myocardial ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy,

    S. Okayama, S. Uemura, T. Soeda, M. Horii, and Y. Saito, “Role of cardiac computed tomography in planning and evaluating percutaneous transluminal septal myocardial ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy,” en,Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 62–65, Jan. 2010,issn: 19345925.doi:10. 1016 / j . jcct . 2009 . 10 ...

    2010

  15. [16]

    Low dose threshold for measuring cardiac functional metrics using four-dimensional CT with deep learning,

    P. Wu, K. Kim, L. Severance, E. McVeigh, and J. D. Pack, “Low dose threshold for measuring cardiac functional metrics using four-dimensional CT with deep learning,” en,Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, vol. 26, no. 2, e14593, Feb. 2025,issn: 1526-9914, 1526-9914.doi:10 . 1002 / acm2 . 14593Accessed: Sep. 6, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://aap...

    work page doi:10.1002/acm2.14593 2025

  16. [17]

    Timing optimization of low-dose first-pass analysis dynamic CT myocardial perfusion measurement: Validation in a swine model,

    L. Hubbard, S. Malkasian, Y. Zhao, P. Abbona, and S. Molloi, “Timing optimization of low-dose first-pass analysis dynamic CT myocardial perfusion measurement: Validation in a swine model,” en,European Radiology Experimental, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 16, Dec. 2019, issn: 2509-9280.doi:10.1186/s41747-019-0093-6Accessed: Sep. 6, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://eu...

    work page doi:10.1186/s41747-019-0093-6accessed: 2019

  17. [18]

    Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations,

    M. Raissi, A. Yazdani, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Hidden fluid mechanics: Learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations,” en,Science, vol. 367, no. 6481, pp. 1026–1030, Feb. 2020, Number: 6481,issn: 0036-8075, 1095-9203.doi:10.1126/ science.aaw4741Accessed: Sep. 3, 2023. [Online]. Available:https://www.science. org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw4741

    doi:10.1126/science.aaw4741 2020

  18. [19]

    Solving inverse problems in physics by optimizing a discrete loss: Fast and accurate learning without neural networks,

    P. Karnakov, S. Litvinov, and P. Koumoutsakos, “Solving inverse problems in physics by optimizing a discrete loss: Fast and accurate learning without neural networks,” en, PNAS Nexus, vol. 3, no. 1, D. Abbott, Ed., pgae005, Dec. 2023,issn: 2752-6542.doi: 10 . 1093 / pnasnexus / pgae005Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https : / / academic . oup ...

    2023

  19. [20]

    Fluid flow and optical flow,

    T. Liu and L. Shen, “Fluid flow and optical flow,” en,Journal of Fluid Mechan- ics, vol. 614, pp. 253–291, Nov. 2008,issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645.doi:10 . 1017 / S0022112008003273Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https : / / www . cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022112008003273/type/journal_ article

    2008

  20. [21]

    Machine learning in cardiovascular flows modeling: Predicting arterial blood pressure from non-invasive 4D flow MRI data using physics-informed neural networks,

    G. Kissas, Y. Yang, E. Hwuang, W. R. Witschey, J. A. Detre, and P. Perdikaris, “Machine learning in cardiovascular flows modeling: Predicting arterial blood pressure from non-invasive 4D flow MRI data using physics-informed neural networks,” en, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 358, p. 112 623, Jan. 2020, arXiv:1905.04817 [cs],i...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [22]

    Physics-informed neural networks for blood flow inverse problems

    J. Garay, J. Dunstan, S. Uribe, and F. S. Costabal,Physics-informed neural networks for blood flow inverse problems, en, arXiv:2308.00927 [cs], Aug. 2023.doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2308.00927Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:http://arxiv.org/ abs/2308.00927

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00927 2023

  22. [23]

    Super-resolution and denoising of 4D-Flow MRI using physics- Informed deep neural nets,

    M. F. Fathi et al., “Super-resolution and denoising of 4D-Flow MRI using physics- Informed deep neural nets,” en,Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 197, p. 105 729, Dec. 2020,issn: 01692607.doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105729 Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https ://linkinghub. elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0169260720315625

    arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    MULTI-parametric MR imaging with fLEXible design (MULTIPLEX),

    Y. Ye, J. Lyu, Y. Hu, Z. Zhang, J. Xu, and W. Zhang, “MULTI-parametric MR imaging with fLEXible design (MULTIPLEX),” en,Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 658–673, Feb. 2022,issn: 0740-3194, 1522-2594.doi:10.1002/mrm.28999 Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https ://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/mrm.28999

    work page doi:10.1002/mrm.28999 2022

  24. [25]

    Super-resolution left ventricular flow and pressure mapping by Navier–Stokes-informed neural networks,

    B. Maidu et al., “Super-resolution left ventricular flow and pressure mapping by Navier–Stokes-informed neural networks,” en,Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 185, p. 109 476, Feb. 2025,issn: 00104825.doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024. 109476Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0010482524015610

    doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024 2025

  25. [26]

    3D velocity and pressure field reconstruction in the cardiac left ventricle via physics informed neural network from echocardiography guided by 3D color Doppler,

    H. S. Wong, W. X. Chan, W. Mao, and C. H. Yap, “3D velocity and pressure field reconstruction in the cardiac left ventricle via physics informed neural network from echocardiography guided by 3D color Doppler,” en,Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, vol. 263, p. 108 671, May 2025,issn: 01692607.doi:10 . 1016 / j . cmpb.2025.108671Accessed: Oct. ...

    arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Physics-Guided Neural Networks for Intraventricular Vector Flow Mapping,

    H. J. Ling et al., “Physics-Guided Neural Networks for Intraventricular Vector Flow Mapping,” en,IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Con- trol, vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 1377–1388, Nov. 2024, arXiv:2403.13040 [eess],issn: 0885-3010, 1525-8955.doi:10 . 1109 / TUFFC . 2024 . 3411718Accessed: Oct. 2, 2025. [Online]. Available:http://ar...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [28]

    Accelerating physics-informed neural fields for fast CT perfusion analysis in acute ischemic stroke,

    L. de Vries, “Accelerating physics-informed neural fields for fast CT perfusion analysis in acute ischemic stroke,” en,

  28. [29]

    Dual-core steered non-rigid registration for multi-modal images via bi-directional image synthesis,

    X. Cao, J. Yang, Y. Gao, Y. Guo, G. Wu, and D. Shen, “Dual-core steered non-rigid registration for multi-modal images via bi-directional image synthesis,” en,Medical Image Analysis, vol. 41, pp. 18–31, Oct. 2017,issn: 13618415.doi:10.1016/j.media. 2017 . 05 . 004Accessed: Sep. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available:https : / / linkinghub . elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...

    doi:10.1016/j.media 2017

  29. [30]

    Estimation of contrast agent concentration from pulsed- mode projections to time contrast-enhanced CT scans,

    I. Heukensfeldt Jansen et al., “Estimation of contrast agent concentration from pulsed- mode projections to time contrast-enhanced CT scans,” en, in7th International Con- ference on Image Formation in X-Ray Computed Tomography, J. W. Stayman, Ed., Baltimore, United States: SPIE, Oct. 2022, p. 111,isbn: 978-1-5106-5669-7 978-1- 5106-5670-3.doi:10.1117/12.2...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2647156accessed: 2022

  30. [31]

    Cardiac phase estimation using deep learning analysis of pulsed-mode projections: Towards autonomous cardiac CT imaging,

    P. Wu et al., “Cardiac phase estimation using deep learning analysis of pulsed-mode projections: Towards autonomous cardiac CT imaging,” en, inMedical Imaging 2023: Physics of Medical Imaging, R. Fahrig, J. M. Sabol, and L. Yu, Eds., San Diego, United States: SPIE, Apr. 2023, p. 67,isbn: 978-1-5106-6031-1 978-1-5106-6032-8. doi:10.1117/12.2654385Accessed:...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2654385accessed: 2023

  31. [32]

    The impact of small motion on the visualization of coronary vessels and lesions in cardiac CT: A simulation study,

    F. Contijoch, J. W. Stayman, and E. R. McVeigh, “The impact of small motion on the visualization of coronary vessels and lesions in cardiac CT: A simulation study,” en, Medical Physics, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3512–3524, Jul. 2017,issn: 00942405.doi:10.1002/ mp . 12295Accessed: Aug. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available:https : / / onlinelibrary . wiley.com/doi/10.10...

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.12295 2017

  32. [33]

    Reduction of noise and image artifacts in computed tomography by nonlinear filtration of the projection images,

    O. Demirkaya, “Reduction of noise and image artifacts in computed tomography by nonlinear filtration of the projection images,” en, vol. 4322,

  33. [34]

    Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural net- work function approximation in reinforcement learning,

    S. Elfwing, E. Uchibe, and K. Doya, “Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural net- work function approximation in reinforcement learning,” en,Neural Networks, vol. 107, pp. 3–11, Nov. 2018,issn: 08936080.doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2017.12.012Accessed: Jun. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0893608017302976

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2017.12.012accessed: 2018

  34. [35]

    Bolus tracking from pulsed x-ray projections: A feasibility study using a five-dimensional cardiac CT contrast dynamics model,

    E. Haneda et al., “Bolus tracking from pulsed x-ray projections: A feasibility study using a five-dimensional cardiac CT contrast dynamics model,” en,Medical Physics, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 131–145, Jan. 2025,issn: 0094-2405, 2473-4209.doi:10.1002/mp. 17464Accessed: Oct. 20, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://aapm.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17464...

    doi:10.1002/mp 2025

  35. [36]

    Non-normal data: Is ANOV A still a valid option?

    M. Blanca, R. Alarc´ on, J. Arnau, R. Bono, and R. Bendayan, “Non-normal data: Is ANOV A still a valid option?” en,Psicothema, vol. 4, no. 29, pp. 552–557, Nov. 2017, issn: 0214-9915, 1886-144X.doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.383Accessed: Oct. 30,

    work page doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.383accessed: 2017

  36. [37]

    Photon-counting CT: Technical features and clinical impact on ab- dominal imaging,

    H. Onishi et al., “Photon-counting CT: Technical features and clinical impact on ab- dominal imaging,” en,Abdominal Radiology, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 4383–4399, Jun. 2024, issn: 2366-0058.doi:10.1007/s00261-024-04414-5Accessed: Oct. 3, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-024-04414-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00261-024-04414-5accessed: 2024

  37. [38]

    On the aerodynamic forces on heaving and pitching airfoils at low Reynolds number,

    M. Moriche, O. Flores, and M. Garc ´ ıa-Villalba, “On the aerodynamic forces on heaving and pitching airfoils at low Reynolds number,” en,Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 828, pp. 395–423, Oct. 2017,issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645.doi:10 . 1017 / jfm . 2017 . 508 Accessed: Sep. 6, 2025. [Online]. Available:https : / / www . cambridge . org / core / product/ide...

    2017

  38. [39]

    Available:https://www.psicothema.com/pii?pii=4434

    [Online]. Available:https://www.psicothema.com/pii?pii=4434

  39. [40]

    Efficient multi-fidelity computation of blood coagula- tion under flow,

    M. Guerrero-Hurtado et al., “Efficient multi-fidelity computation of blood coagula- tion under flow,” en,PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 19, no. 10, A. Marsden, Ed., e1011583, Oct. 2023,issn: 1553-7358.doi:10 . 1371 / journal . pcbi . 1011583Ac- cessed: Sep. 6, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal. pcbi.1011583

    doi:10.1371/journal 2023

  40. [41]

    Efficient Implementation of Weighted ENO Schemes,

    G.-S. Jiang and C.-W. Shu, “Efficient Implementation of Weighted ENO Schemes,” en,Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 202–228, Jun. 1996,issn: 00219991.doi:10.1006/jcph.1996.0130Accessed: Sep. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021999196901308

    arXiv 1996

  41. [42]

    An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows,

    M. Uhlmann, “An immersed boundary method with direct forcing for the simulation of particulate flows,” en,Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 209, no. 2, pp. 448– 476, Nov. 2005,issn: 00219991.doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.03.017Accessed: Sep. 6,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.03.017accessed: 2005

  42. [43]

    Available:https : / / linkinghub

    [Online]. Available:https : / / linkinghub . elsevier . com / retrieve / pii / S0021999105001385

  43. [44]

    Demonstration of Patient-Specific Simulations to Assess Left Atrial Appendage Thrombogenesis Risk,

    M. Garc ´ ıa-Villalba et al., “Demonstration of Patient-Specific Simulations to Assess Left Atrial Appendage Thrombogenesis Risk,” en,Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 12, p. 596 596, Feb. 2021,issn: 1664-042X.doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.596596Accessed: Sep. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10. 3389/fphys.2021.596596/full VIII.E. ...

    arXiv 2021

  44. [46]

    ¡span style=

    A. Gonzalo et al., “¡span style=”font-variant:small-caps;”¿Non-Newtonian¡/span¿ blood rheology impacts left atrial stasis in ¡span style=”font-variant:small- caps;”¿patient-specific¡/span¿ simulations,” en,International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, vol. 38, no. 6, e3597, Jun. 2022,issn: 2040-7939, 2040-7947.doi:10 . 1002 / cnm ...

    work page doi:10.1002/cnm.3597 2022

  45. [47]

    Pulmonary vein flow split effects in patient-specific simulations of left atrial flow,

    E. Dur´ an et al., “Pulmonary vein flow split effects in patient-specific simulations of left atrial flow,” en,Computers in Biology and Medicine, vol. 163, p. 107 128, Sep. 2023,issn: 00104825.doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107128Accessed: Sep. 18,

    arXiv 2023

  46. [48]

    Available:https : / / linkinghub

    [Online]. Available:https : / / linkinghub . elsevier . com / retrieve / pii / S0010482523005930 VIII.E. Impact of PM Imaging Parameters on Outlet Flow Estimation PINN-based Flow Estimation in CT page 35

  47. [2023]

    Available:https://journals.lww.com/00005382-201303000-00005

    [Online]. Available:https://journals.lww.com/00005382-201303000-00005

    arXiv

  48. [2025]

    Available:https : / / journals

    [Online]. Available:https : / / journals . physiology . org / doi / 10 . 1152 / ajpheart.00245.2024

    arXiv 2024