Uncertainty in cardiovascular digital twins despite non-normal errors in 4D flow MRI: identifying reliable biomarkers such as ventricular relaxation rate

Kajsa Tunedal, Tino Ebbers, Gunnar Cedersund
{"title":"Uncertainty in cardiovascular digital twins despite non-normal errors in 4D flow MRI: identifying reliable biomarkers such as ventricular relaxation rate","authors":"Kajsa Tunedal, Tino Ebbers, Gunnar Cedersund","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.05.611398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cardiovascular digital twins and mechanistic models can be used to obtain new biomarkers from patient-specific hemodynamic data. However, such model-derived biomarkers are only clinically relevant if the variation between timepoints/patients is smaller than the uncertainty of the biomarkers. Unfortunately, this uncertainty is challenging to calculate, as the uncertainty of the underlying hemodynamic data is largely unknown and has several sources that are not additive or normally distributed. This violates normality assumptions of current methods; implying that also biomarkers have an unknown uncertainty. To remedy these problems, we herein present a method, with attached code, for uncertainty calculation of model-derived biomarkers using non-normal data. First, we estimated all sources of uncertainty, both normal and non-normal, in hemodynamic data used to personalize an existing model; the errors in 4D flow MRI-derived stroke volumes were 5-20% and the blood pressure errors were 0+-8 mmHg. Second, we estimated the resulting model-derived biomarker uncertainty for 100 simulated datasets, sampled from the data distributions, by: 1) combining data uncertainties 2) parameter estimation, 3) profile-likelihood. The true biomarker values were found within a 95% confidence interval in 98% (median) of the cases. This shows both that our estimated data uncertainty is reasonable, and that we can use profile-likelihood despite the non-normality. Finally, we demonstrated that e.g. ventricular relaxation rate has a smaller uncertainty (~10%) than the variation across a clinical cohort (~40%), meaning that these biomarkers have clinical usefulness. Our results take us one step closer to the usage of model-derived biomarkers for cardiovascular patient characterization.","PeriodicalId":501213,"journal":{"name":"bioRxiv - Systems Biology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"bioRxiv - Systems Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.05.611398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiovascular digital twins and mechanistic models can be used to obtain new biomarkers from patient-specific hemodynamic data. However, such model-derived biomarkers are only clinically relevant if the variation between timepoints/patients is smaller than the uncertainty of the biomarkers. Unfortunately, this uncertainty is challenging to calculate, as the uncertainty of the underlying hemodynamic data is largely unknown and has several sources that are not additive or normally distributed. This violates normality assumptions of current methods; implying that also biomarkers have an unknown uncertainty. To remedy these problems, we herein present a method, with attached code, for uncertainty calculation of model-derived biomarkers using non-normal data. First, we estimated all sources of uncertainty, both normal and non-normal, in hemodynamic data used to personalize an existing model; the errors in 4D flow MRI-derived stroke volumes were 5-20% and the blood pressure errors were 0+-8 mmHg. Second, we estimated the resulting model-derived biomarker uncertainty for 100 simulated datasets, sampled from the data distributions, by: 1) combining data uncertainties 2) parameter estimation, 3) profile-likelihood. The true biomarker values were found within a 95% confidence interval in 98% (median) of the cases. This shows both that our estimated data uncertainty is reasonable, and that we can use profile-likelihood despite the non-normality. Finally, we demonstrated that e.g. ventricular relaxation rate has a smaller uncertainty (~10%) than the variation across a clinical cohort (~40%), meaning that these biomarkers have clinical usefulness. Our results take us one step closer to the usage of model-derived biomarkers for cardiovascular patient characterization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
尽管四维血流磁共振成像存在非正态误差,心血管数字双胞胎仍存在不确定性:识别可靠的生物标志物,如心室弛豫率
心血管数字双胞胎和机理模型可用于从患者特异性血液动力学数据中获得新的生物标志物。然而,只有当时间点/患者之间的变化小于生物标志物的不确定性时,这种模型衍生的生物标志物才具有临床意义。遗憾的是,这种不确定性的计算具有挑战性,因为基本血液动力学数据的不确定性在很大程度上是未知的,而且有几个来源不是相加或正态分布的。这违反了当前方法的正态性假设,意味着生物标志物也存在未知的不确定性。为了解决这些问题,我们在此介绍一种使用非正态分布数据计算模型衍生生物标记物不确定性的方法,并附有代码。首先,我们估算了用于个性化现有模型的血液动力学数据的所有不确定性来源(包括正常和非正常数据);4D 血流 MRI 导出的卒中容积误差为 5-20%,血压误差为 0+-8 mmHg。其次,我们从数据分布中抽取 100 个模拟数据集,通过以下方法估算了由此得出的模型衍生生物标记物的不确定性:1) 结合数据不确定性;2) 参数估计;3) 特征似然法。在 98%(中位数)的情况下,都能在 95% 的置信区间内找到真实的生物标志物值。这既表明我们估计的数据不确定性是合理的,也表明尽管存在非正态性,我们仍然可以使用轮廓似然法。最后,我们证明了心室松弛率等的不确定性(约 10%)小于临床队列中的变化(约 40%),这意味着这些生物标记物具有临床实用性。我们的研究结果使我们离使用模型衍生的生物标志物表征心血管病人更近了一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Decoding Cytokine Networks in Ulcerative Colitis to Identify Pathogenic Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets High-content microscopy and machine learning characterize a cell morphology signature of NF1 genotype in Schwann cells Tissue-specific metabolomic signatures for a doublesex model of reduced sexual dimorphism Sequential design of single-cell experiments to identify discrete stochastic models for gene expression. Environment-mediated interactions cause an externalized and collective memory in microbes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1