An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a typical aortic disease with serious complications. In clinical practice, the decision to intervene in treatment depends on the rupture risk of AAA. Therefore, monitoring the progression of the disease and accurately assessing the rupture risk is of great importance for its treatment. Studies have shown that the biomechanical indicators based on multi-scale models are more effective in accurately assessing the rupture risk of AAA. However, using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to simulate the biomechanical environment is a cumbersome and time-consuming process, which is inadequate to meet the needs of clinical monitoring and quick decisions. While the hemodynamic environment of AAA is heavily dependent on geometry, more and more biomechanics-related morphological parameters have been raised and validated. In this review, we summarized typical morphological parameters associated with AAA rupture and their relationships with the mechanical environment, including maximum diameter, deformation rate, saccular index, asymmetry, AAA volume, tortuosity, and intraluminal thrombus (ILT), providing a reference for clinical preoperative risk assessment.
Clinical Impact
Studies have shown that the biomechanical indicators based on multi-scale models are more effective in accurately assessing the rupture risk of AAA. To meet the need for clinical monitoring and rapid decision making, the typical morphological parameters associated with AAA rupture and their relationships with the mechanical environment have been summarized, which provide a reference for clinical preoperative risk assessment of AAA.
JohnstonKWRutherfordRBTilsonMD, et al. Suggested standards for reporting on arterial aneurysms. Subcommittee on Reporting Standards for Arterial Aneurysms, Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for Vascular Surgery and North American Chapter, International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1991;13(3):452–458.
5.
WanhainenAVerziniFVan HerzeeleI, et al. Editor’s choice—European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 clinical practice guidelines on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019;57(1):8–93.
6.
EllisMPowellJTGreenhalghRM.Limitations of ultrasonography in surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Br J Surg. 1991;78(5):614–616.
7.
LindholtJSVammenSJuulS, et al. The validity of ultrasonographic scanning as screening method for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1999;17(6):472–475.
8.
BrangschJReimannCCollettiniF, et al. Molecular imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Trends Mol Med. 2017;23(2):150–164.
9.
NevittMPBallardDJHallettJW, et al. Prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321(15):1009–1014.
10.
US Preventive Services Task Force; OwensDKDavidsonKW, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2019;322(22):2211–2218.
11.
Guirguis-BlakeJMBeilTLSengerCA, et al. Primary care screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2019;322(22):2219–2238.
12.
ReimerinkJJvan der LaanMJKoelemayMJ, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based mortality from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 2013;100(11):1405–1413.
13.
Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in primary care. CMAJ. 2017;189(36):E1137–E1145.
GuillermoV-AJosÉ AlbertoV-AEduardoS, et al. Statistical analysis for rupture risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) based on its morphometry. J Mech Med Biol. 2017;17(04):1750065.
16.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(3):198–202.
17.
Vilalta AlonsoGNieto PalomoFMihai LipsaL, et al. PredicciÓn Del Riesgo De Ruptura De Aneurismas De Aorta Abdominal. MÉtodo Basado En Los Biodeterminantes GeomÉtricos. Dyna. 2012;87(3):66–73.
18.
WassefMBaxterBTChisholmRL, et al. Pathogenesis of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a multidisciplinary research program supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Vasc Surg. 2001;34(4):730–738.
19.
FillingerMFRacusinJBakerRK, et al. Anatomic characteristics of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on conventional CT scans: implications for rupture risk. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39(6):1243–1252.
20.
CeliSBertiS. Biomechanics and FE modelling of aneurysm: review and advances in computational models. In: Murai Y, ed. Aneurysm. London: InterchOpen; 2012. doi: 10.5772/46030
21.
VenkatasubramaniamAKFaganMJMehtaT, et al. A comparative study of aortic wall stress using finite element analysis for ruptured and non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28(2):168–176.
22.
HallAJBusseEFMcCarvilleDJ, et al. Aortic wall tension as a predictive factor for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture: improving the selection of patients for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2000;14(2):152–157.
23.
Nieto-PalomoFPerez-RuedaMALipsaLM, et al. Statistical techniques for predicting rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysms: a contribution based on bootstrap. Sci Prog. 2021;104(2):368504211003785.
24.
InzoliFBoschettiFZappaM, et al. Biomechanical factors in abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7(6):667–674.
25.
WangDHMakarounMSWebsterMW, et al. Effect of intraluminal thrombus on wall stress in patient-specific models of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36(3):598–604.
26.
VorpDARaghavanMLWebsterMW.Mechanical wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysm: influence of diameter and asymmetry. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27(4):632–639.
27.
GasserTCAuerMLabrutoF, et al. Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of finite element simulations. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40(2):176–185.
28.
RuigómezJMG. Factores biomecánicos y su influencia en la función cardiovascular. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2005;58(2):121–125.
29.
MowerWRBaraffLJSneydJ.Stress distributions in vascular aneurysms: factors affecting risk of aneurysm rupture. J Surg Res. 1993;55(2):155–161.
30.
ThubrikarMJal-SoudiJRobicsekF.Wall stress studies of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a clinical model. Ann Vasc Surg. 2001;15(3):355–366.
31.
RaghavanMLVorpDAFederleMP, et al. Wall stress distribution on three-dimensionally reconstructed models of human abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2000;31(4):760–769.
32.
FillingerMFMarraSPRaghavanML, et al. Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: wall stress versus diameter. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37(4):724–732.
33.
MengHTutinoVMXiangJ, et al. High WSS or low WSS? Complex interactions of hemodynamics with intracranial aneurysm initiation, growth, and rupture: toward a unifying hypothesis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(7):1254–1262.
34.
StevensRRFGrytsanABiasettiJ, et al. Biomechanical changes during abdominal aortic aneurysm growth. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0187421.
35.
CyronCJWilsonJSHumphreyJD.Mechanobiological stability: a new paradigm to understand the enlargement of aneurysms?J R Soc Interface. 2014;11(100):20140680.
36.
ShumJMartufiGDi MartinoE, et al. Quantitative assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm geometry. Ann Biomed Eng. 2011;39(1):277–286.
37.
SoudahEVilaltaGBordoneM, et al. Estudio paramétrico de tensiones hemodinámicas en modelos de aneurismas de aorta abdominal. Rev Int Metodos Numer Para Cálc Diseño Ing. 2015;31(2):106–112.
38.
JolyFSoulezGLessardS, et al. A cohort longitudinal study identifies morphology and hemodynamics predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth. Ann Biomed Eng. 2020;48(2):606–623.
39.
HollingsworthACDawkinsCWongPF, et al. Aneurysm morphology is a more significant predictor of survival than Hardman’s index in patients with ruptured or acutely symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;58:222–231.
40.
KarthausEGTongTMLVahlA, et al. Saccular abdominal aortic aneurysms: patient characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes in the Netherlands. Ann Surg. 2019;270(5):852–858.
41.
NatsumeKShiiyaNTakeharaY, et al. Characterizing saccular aortic arch aneurysms from the geometry-flow dynamics relationship. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(6):1413–1420.
42.
KarthausEGTongTMLVahlA.Saccular abdominal aortic aneurysms: patient characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes in the Netherlands. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71(2):P714.
43.
ShangEKNathanDPBoonnWW, et al. A modern experience with saccular aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(1):84–88.
44.
PappuSDardikATagareH, et al. Beyond fusiform and saccular: a novel quantitative tortuosity index may help classify aneurysm shape and predict aneurysm rupture potential. Ann Vasc Surg. 2008;22(1):88–97.
45.
ChaikofELDalmanRLEskandariMK, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(1):2–77.e2.
46.
DarlingRCMessinaCRBrewsterDC, et al. Autopsy study of unoperated abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case for early resection. Circulation. 1977;56(suppl 3):II161–II164.
47.
JonesACahillDGardhamR.Outcome in patients with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm considered unfit for surgery. Br J Surg. 1998;85(10):1382–1384.
48.
BrownLCPowellJT.Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):289–296; discussion 296–287.
49.
LederleFAJohnsonGRWilsonSE, et al. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA. 2002;287(22):2968–2972.
50.
BrewsterDCCronenwettJLHallettJW, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the joint council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37(5):1106–1117.
51.
AzizMHillAABourchierR.Four-year follow up of patients with untreated abdominal aortic aneurysms. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(11):935–940.
52.
KleinstreuerCLiZ.Analysis and computer program for rupture-risk prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Biomed Eng Online. 2006;5:19.
53.
ChaikofELBrewsterDCDalmanRL, et al. The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(suppl 4):S2–S49.
54.
MollFLPowellJTFraedrichG, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(suppl 1):S1–S58.
55.
NoronenKLaukontausSKantonenI, et al. The natural course of abdominal aortic aneurysms that meet the treatment criteria but not the operative requirements. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45(4):326–331.
56.
WesternCECarlisleJMcCarthyRJ, et al. Palliation of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the endovascular era. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45(1):37–43.
57.
HartshorneTCMcCollumCNEarnshawJJ, et al. Ultrasound measurement of aortic diameter in a national screening programme. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42(2):195–199.
58.
ThaparAChealDHopkinsT, et al. Internal or external wall diameter for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening?Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(6):503–505.
59.
GurtelschmidMBjorckMWanhainenA.Comparison of three ultrasound methods of measuring the diameter of the abdominal aorta. Br J Surg. 2014;101(6):633–636.
60.
MartufiGDi MartinoESAmonCH, et al. Three-dimensional geometrical characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms: image-based wall thickness distribution. J Biomech Eng. 2009;131(6):061015.
61.
Simão da SilvaERodriguesAJMagalhães Castro de TolosaE, et al. Morphology and diameter of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: a prospective autopsy study. Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;8(7):526–532.
62.
KhanSVermaVVermaS, et al. Assessing the potential risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Clin Radiol. 2015;70(1):11–20.
63.
CollaboratorsRBownMJSweetingMJ, et al. Surveillance intervals for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2013;309(8):806–813.
64.
LederleFAJohnsonGRWilsonSE, et al. The aneurysm detection and management study screening program: validation cohort and final results. Aneurysm detection and management veterans affairs cooperative study investigators. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(10):1425–1430.
65.
LindholtJSVammenSHennebergEW, et al. [Optimal interval screening and observation of abdominal aortic aneurysms]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2001;163(37):5034–5037.
66.
Schmitz-RixenTKeeseMHakimiM, et al. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm-epidemiology, predisposing factors, and biology. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401(3):275–288.
67.
GaoZXiongJChenZ, et al. Gender differences of morphological and hemodynamic characteristics of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Biol Sex Differ. 2020;11(1):41.
68.
KimuraMHoshinaKMiyaharaK, et al. Geometric analysis of ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2019;69(1):86–91.
69.
LoRCLuBConradMF, et al. Relative importance of aneurysm diameter and body size for predicting AAA rupture in men and women. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(1):287–288.
70.
UlugPSweetingMJvon AllmenRS, et al. Morphological suitability for endovascular repair, non-intervention rates, and operative mortality in women and men assessed for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2482–2491.
71.
CarmoMColomboLBrunoA, et al. Alteration of elastin, collagen and their cross-links in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002;23(6):543–549.
72.
VillardCHultgrenR.Abdominal aortic aneurysm: sex differences. Maturitas. 2018;109:63–69.
73.
GaoZChenZSunA, et al. Gender differences in cardiovascular disease. Med Novel Technol Devices. 2019;4:100025.
74.
IffrigETaylorWROshinskiJ.Comparison of oscillatory wall shear stress in the abdominal aorta of men and women: relationship to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) development. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18(Suppl 1).
75.
McGloughlinT.Biomechanics and Mechanobiology of Aneurysms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18095-8
76.
Lindquist LiljeqvistMHultgrenRSiikaA, et al. Gender, smoking, body size, and aneurysm geometry influence the biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms as estimated by finite element analysis. J Vasc Surg. 2017;65(4):1014–1021.
77.
DeplanoVSiouffiM.Experimental and numerical study of pulsatile flows through stenosis. J Biomech. 1999;32(10):1081–1090.
78.
PengLQiuYYangZ, et al. Patient-specific computational hemodynamic analysis for interrupted aortic arch in an adult: implications for aortic dissection initiation. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):8600.
79.
VilaltaGNietoFVaqueroC, et al. Patient-specific clinical assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk based on its geometric parameters. Biomed Eng. 2011:459–466.
80.
RaghavanMLMaBHarbaughRE.Quantified aneurysm shape and rupture risk. J Neurosurg. 2005;102(2):355–362.
81.
CappellerWAEngelmannHBlechschmidtS, et al. Possible objectification of a critical maximum diameter for elective surgery in abdominal aortic aneurysms based on one- and three-dimensional ratios. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1997;38(6):623–628.
82.
AlonsoGVSoudahEAlonsoJAV, et al. Preliminary correlations for characterizing the morphology of abdominal aortic aneurysms as predictor of rupture. In: Silva Neto A, Llanes Santiago O, Silva G, eds. Mathematical Modeling and Computational Intelligence in Engineering Applications. Cham: Springer; 2016; 1–14.
83.
HatakeyamaTShigematsuHMutoT.Risk factors for rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm based on three-dimensional study. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33(3):453–461.
84.
KhanMNejimBFaatehM, et al. Association of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter indexed to patient height with symptomatic presentation and mortality. J Vasc Surg. 2021;75:1606–1615.e2.
85.
DobrinPB.Pathophysiology and pathogenesis of aortic aneurysms: current concepts. Surg Clin North Am. 1989;69(4):687–703.
86.
GiannoglouGGiannakoulasGSoulisJ, et al. Predicting the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms by utilizing various geometrical parameters: revisiting the diameter criterion. Angiology. 2006;57(4):487–494.
87.
FinolEAKeyhaniKAmonCH.The effect of asymmetry in abdominal aortic aneurysms under physiologically realistic pulsatile flow conditions. J Biomech Eng. 2003;125(2):207–217.
88.
DoyleBJCallananABurkePE, et al. Vessel asymmetry as an additional diagnostic tool in the assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(2):443–454.
89.
RodriguezJFRuizCDoblaréM, et al. Mechanical stresses in abdominal aortic aneurysms: influence of diameter, asymmetry, and material anisotropy. J Biomech Eng. 2008;130(2):021023.
90.
XuXWangBRenC, et al. Age-related impairment of vascular structure and functions. Aging Dis. 2017;8(5):590–610.
91.
GeorgakarakosEIoannouCVKamarianakisY, et al. The role of geometric parameters in the prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall stress. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39(1):42–48.
92.
AzarDOhadiDRachevA, et al. Mechanical and geometrical determinants of wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms: a computational study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192032.
93.
SacksMSVorpDARaghavanML, et al. In vivo three-dimensional surface geometry of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Biomed Eng. 1999;27(4):469–479.
94.
PapaharilaouYEkaterinarisJAManousakiE, et al. A decoupled fluid structure approach for estimating wall stress in abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Biomech. 2007;40(2):367–377.
95.
ElgerDFBlackketterDMBudwigRS, et al. The influence of shape on the stresses in model abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Biomech Eng. 1996;118(3):326–332.
96.
KitagawaAMastracciTMvon AllmenR, et al. The role of diameter versus volume as the best prognostic measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):258–265.
97.
HarterLPGrossBHCallenPW, et al. Ultrasonic evaluation of abdominal aortic thrombus. J Ultrasound Med. 1982;1(8):315–318.
98.
HansSSJareunpoonOBalasubramaniamM, et al. Size and location of thrombus in intact and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2005;41(4):584–588.
99.
GasserTCNchimiASwedenborgJ, et al. A novel strategy to translate the biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms to their equivalent diameter risk: method and retrospective validation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47(3):288–295.
100.
SwedenborgJKaziMErikssonP, et al. Influence of the intraluminal thrombus in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Acta Chir Belg. 2004;104(6):606–608.
101.
HallerSJCrawfordJDCourchaineKM, et al. Intraluminal thrombus is associated with early rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2018;67(4):1051–1058.
102.
ThubrikarMJRobicsekFLabrosseM, et al. Effect of thrombus on abdominal aortic aneurysm wall dilation and stress. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2003;44(1):67–77.
103.
RiverosFMartufiGGasserTC, et al. On the impact of intraluminal thrombus mechanical behavior in AAA passive mechanics. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(9):2253–2264.
104.
RahmaniSAlaghebandMKarimiA, et al. Wall stress in media layer of stented three-layered aortic aneurysm at different intraluminal thrombus locations with pulsatile heart cycle. J Med Eng Technol. 2015;39(4):239–245.
105.
VorpDAMandarinoWAWebsterMW, et al. Potential influence of intraluminal thrombus on abdominal aortic aneurysm as assessed by a new non-invasive method. Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;4(6):732–739.
106.
KooleDZandvoortHJSchoneveldA, et al. Intraluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm thrombus is associated with disruption of wall integrity. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(1):77–83.
107.
Vande GeestJPDi MartinoESBohraA, et al. A biomechanics-based rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm risk assessment: demonstrative application. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1085:11–21.
108.
ArzaniASuhGYDalmanRL, et al. A longitudinal comparison of hemodynamics and intraluminal thrombus deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2014;307(12):H1786–1795.
109.
ZambranoBAGharahiHLimC, et al. Association of intraluminal thrombus, hemodynamic forces, and abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion using longitudinal CT images. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(5):1502–1514.
110.
MartufiGLindquist LiljeqvistMSakalihasanN, et al. Local diameter, wall stress, and thrombus thickness influence the local growth of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23(6):957–966.
111.
KontopodisNKoncarITzirakisK, et al. Intraluminal thrombus deposition is reduced in ruptured compared to diameter-matched intact abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;55:189–195.
112.
StenbaekJKalinBSwedenborgJ.Growth of thrombus may be a better predictor of rupture than diameter in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000;20(5):466–469.
113.
TzirakisKKamarianakisYMetaxaE, et al. A robust approach for exploring hemodynamics and thrombus growth associations in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2017;55(8):1493–1506.
114.
WilsonKALeeAJLeeAJ, et al. The relationship between aortic wall distensibility and rupture of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37(1):112–117.
115.
VilaltaGNietoFVaqueroC, et al. Quantitative indicator of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk based on its geometric parameters. Int J Med, Health, Biomed, Bioeng Pharm Eng. 2010;4(9):404–408.
116.
FilipovicNIvanovicMKrstajicD, et al. Hemodynamic flow modeling through an abdominal aorta aneurysm using data mining tools. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2011;15(2):189–194.
117.
JordanskiMRadovicMMilosevicZ, et al. Machine learning approach for predicting wall shear distribution for abdominal aortic aneurysm and carotid bifurcation models. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2018;22(2):537–544.
118.
JiangZDoHNChoiJ, et al. A deep learning approach to predict abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion using longitudinal data. Front Phys. 2020;7:235.
119.
RaissiMYazdaniAKarniadakisGE.Hidden fluid mechanics: learning velocity and pressure fields from flow visualizations. Science. 2020;367(6481):1026–1030.
