ArticleScientific reports2015
A comprehensive study on different modelling approaches to predict platelet deposition rates in a perfusion chamber.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thrombus formation is a multiscale phenomenon triggered by platelet deposition over a protrombotic surface (eg. a ruptured atherosclerotic plaque). Despite the medical urgency for computational tools that aid in the early diagnosis of thrombotic events, the integration of computational models of thrombus formation at different scales requires a comprehensive understanding of the role and limitation of each modelling approach. We propose three different modelling approaches to predict platelet deposition. Specifically, we consider measurements of platelet deposition under blood flow conditions in a perfusion chamber for different time periods (3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes) at shear rates of 212 s(-1), 1390 s(-1) and 1690 s(-1). Our modelling approaches are: i) a model based on the mass-transfer boundary layer theory; ii) a machine-learning approach; and iii) a phenomenological model. The results indicate that the three approaches on average have median errors of 21%, 20.7% and 14.2%, respectively. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of using an empirical data set as a proxy for a real-patient scenario in which practitioners have accumulated data on a given number of patients and want to obtain a diagnosis for a new patient about whom they only have the current observation of a certain number of variables.
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.