ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2016
Effects of inflow velocity profile on two-dimensional hemodynamic analysis by ordinary and ultrasonic-measurement-integrated simulations.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two-dimensional ultrasonic-measurement-integrated (2D-UMI) simulation correctly reproduces hemodynamics even with an inexact inflow velocity distribution. This study aimed to investigate which is superior, a two-dimensional ordinary (2D-O) simulation with an accurate inflow velocity distribution or a 2D-UMI simulation with an inaccurate one. 2D-O and 2D-UMI simulations were performed for blood flow in a carotid artery with four upstream velocity boundary conditions: a velocity profile with backprojected measured Doppler velocities (condition A), and velocity profiles with a measured Doppler velocity distribution, a parabolic one, and a uniform one, magnitude being obtained by inflow velocity estimation (conditions B, C, and D, respectively). The error of Doppler velocity against the measurement data was sensitive to the inflow velocity distribution in the 2D-O simulation, but not in the 2D-UMI simulation with the inflow velocity estimation. Among the results in conditions B, C, and D, the error in the worst 2D-UMI simulation with condition D was 31 % of that in the best 2D-O simulation with condition B, implying the superiority of the 2D-UMI simulation with an inaccurate inflow velocity distribution over the 2D-O simulation with an exact one. Condition A resulted in a larger error than the other conditions in both the 2D-O and 2D-UMI simulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26307203What 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.