ArticleInterface focus2015
Comparison of generic and subject-specific models for simulation of pulmonary perfusion and forced expiration.
Article in Interface focus, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the role of sex-related structure-function differences on airway aerosol transport and deposition.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2024Article
- Quantitative Imaging Metrics for the Assessment of Pulmonary Pathophysiology: An Official American Thoracic Society and Fleischner Society Joint Workshop Report.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Article
- Sex matters: the frequently overlooked importance of considering sex in computational models.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Review
- High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury: Size Does Matter.Critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of translating multiscale model analysis of pulmonary function into population studies is challenging because of the need to derive a geometric model for each subject. This could be addressed by using a generic model with appropriate customization to subject-specific data. Here, we present a quantitative comparison of simulating two fundamental behaviours of the lung-its haemodynamic response to vascular occlusion, and the forced expiration in 1 s (FEV1) following bronchoconstriction-in subject-specific and generic models. When the subjects are considered as a group, there is no significant difference between predictions of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), pulmonary vascular resistance or forced expiration; however, significant differences are apparent in the prediction of arterial oxygen, for both baseline and post-occlusion. Despite the apparent consistency of the generic and subject-specific models, a third of subjects had generic model under-prediction of the increase in mPAP following occlusion, and half had the decrease in arterial oxygen over-predicted; two subjects had considerable differences in the percentage reduction of FEV1 following bronchoconstriction. The generic model approach can be useful for physiologically directed studies but is not appropriate for simulating pathophysiological function that is strongly dependent on interaction with lung structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.