Transmission line model as a digital twin for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. Uniform lossless tube-load model. a 2-parameter tube-load model. b 3-parameter tube-load model. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${P}_{C}\left(t\right)$$\end{document}PCt: carotid artery tonometry waveform. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${P}_{F}\left(t\right)$$\end{document}PFt: femoral artery tonometry waveform. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\tau$$\end{document}τ: pulse transit time (PTT). \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek}…

• 

  Fig. 2. Representative examples of ground truth carotid artery tonometry waveform vs the same waveform replicated by two TL models when femoral artery tonometry waveform was inputted. a 3 examples pertaining to CON. b 3 examples pertaining to AAA. c 3 examples pertaining to EVAR. CON: matched controls. AAA: AAA patients. EVAR: AAA patients post-EVAR. 2p TL: 2-parameter TL model. 3 P TL: 3-parameter TL model.

• 

  Fig. 3. Normalized PTT in CON, AAA, and EVAR associated with 2-parameter and 3-parameter TL models. a CON vs AAA. b AAA vs EVAR., 2 P TL: 2-parameter TL model. 3 P TL: 3-parameter TL model.

• 

  Fig. 4. Normalized RC as well as \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\eta }_{1}\, and\, {\eta }_{2}$$\end{document}η1andη2 in CON, AAA, and EVAR associated with 2-parameter and 3-parameter TL models. a Normalized RC pertaining to CON vs AAA. b Normalized RC pertaining to AAA vs EVAR. c Normalized \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\eta }_{1}$$\end{document}η1 pertaining to CON vs AAA and AAA vs EVAR. d Normalized \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\eta }_{2}$$\end{document}η2 pertaining to CON vs AAA and AAA vs EVAR.

• 

  Fig. 5. Classification of CON, AAA, and EVAR. a Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) pertaining to classification of CON vs AAA. b ROC pertaining to classification of AAA vs EVAR.