Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25682537›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanics2015

Distribution of aerosolized particles in healthy and emphysematous rat lungs: comparison between experimental and numerical studies.

Jessica M Oakes, Alison L Marsden, Céline Grandmont, Chantal Darquenne, Irene E Vignon-Clementel

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An Introduction to Biomedical Computational Fluid Dynamics.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Inhalation Exposure Analysis of Lung-Inhalable Particles in an Approximate Rat Central Airway.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Validating Whole-Airway CFD Predictions of DPI Aerosol Deposition at Multiple Flow Rates.Journal of aerosol medicine and pulmonary drug delivery · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessica M OakesINRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France; Sorbonne Universités UPMC Univ. Paris 6, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, 75005 Paris, France.
Alison L MarsdenMechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Céline GrandmontINRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France; Sorbonne Universités UPMC Univ. Paris 6, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, 75005 Paris, France.
Chantal DarquenneDepartment of Medicine, Division of Physiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Irene E Vignon-ClementelINRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, 78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France; Sorbonne Universités UPMC Univ. Paris 6, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions, 75005 Paris, France. Electronic address: irene.vignon-clementel@inria.fr.

Funding

Quantitative MRI-based Assessment of Aerosol Deposition in the LungR21HL087805 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI DARQUENNE, CHANTAL · 2008 to 2009
$346k
NHLBI NIH HHS 1R21HL087805-02NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL087805
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In silico models of airflow and particle deposition in the lungs are increasingly used to determine the therapeutic or toxic effects of inhaled aerosols. While computational methods have advanced significantly, relatively few studies have directly compared model predictions to experimental data. Furthermore, few prior studies have examined the influence of emphysema on particle deposition. In this work we performed airflow and particle simulations to compare numerical predictions to data from our previous aerosol exposure experiments. Employing an image-based 3D rat airway geometry, we first compared steady flow simulations to coupled 3D-0D unsteady simulations in the healthy rat lung. Then, in 3D-0D simulations, the influence of emphysema was investigated by matching disease location to the experimental study. In both the healthy unsteady and steady simulations, good agreement was found between numerical predictions of aerosol delivery and experimental deposition data. However, deposition patterns in the 3D geometry differed between the unsteady and steady cases. On the contrary, satisfactory agreement was not found between the numerical predictions and experimental data for the emphysematous lungs. This indicates that the deposition rate downstream of the 3D geometry is likely proportional to airflow delivery in the healthy lungs, but not in the emphysematous lungs. Including small airway collapse, variations in downstream airway size and tissue properties, and tracking particles throughout expiration may result in a more favorable agreement in future studies.

Indexed as

AerosolsAnimalsComputer SimulationDisease Models, AnimalHumansHydrodynamicsImaging, Three-DimensionalLungModels, BiologicalParticle SizePulmonary EmphysemaRatsRespirationTissue DistributionAerosolsAerosol exposure experimentsAirflowComputational fluid dynamicsMulti-scaleParticle deposition

Identifiers

PMID25682537
PMCPMC4934663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.