The Case for Interpretable Geometry: Statistical Shape Models vs. Curvature-Based Descriptors in Aortic Disease Classification
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Purpose
Quantifying aortic morphology is central to surgical planning for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), yet no consensus exists on how best to represent three-dimensional aortic shape for outcome prediction. Two broad strategies have emerged: statistical shape analysis (SSA), which relies on statistical methods and dimensionality reduction to capture the most significant shape modes, and geometrically-informed approaches that extract descriptors grounded in differential geometry. Here, we directly compare these paradigms on a cohort of 290 CTA scans classified by surgical outcome (non-pathological, successful TEVAR, failed TEVAR).
Methods
For the geometrically-informed approach, we use a two-dimensional feature space using normalized fluctuation in integrated Gaussian curvature and mean aortic radius R . For SSA, we construct a point-cloud shape model with dimensionality reduction using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and evaluate classification performance as a function of the number of retained principal components.
Results
SSA’s leading principal components encode variations in global aortic size and are statistically redundant with ( R , ), yet they lack a one-to-one correspondence with interpretable anatomical quantities. Testing on an unseen, independent dataset reveals that the geometrically-informed approach provided better generalizability than SSA. Using Gaussian process classification with 10-fold cross-validation, we find that the geometrically-informed approach achieves a higher weighted F 1 score than SSA achieves with up to 20 principal components. While SSA’s full-dataset accuracy rises above 90% with increasing dimensionality, this gain is driven by overfitting rather than genuine discriminative power.
Conclusion
These results demonstrate that geometrically-informed descriptors offer a more interpretable, robust, and clinically translatable framework for aortic disease classification than data-driven statistical shape representations.
