ArticlePloS one2017
Use of the FDA nozzle model to illustrate validation techniques in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Assessment Associated with Transcatheter Heart Valve Prostheses: A Position Paper of the ISO Working Group.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2018Guideline
- Experimental Validation of Large Eddy Simulation as a Benchmark for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Flow Modeling in a Magnetically Levitated Blood Pump.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Credibility assessment of in silico clinical trials for medical devices.PLoS computational biology · 2024Review
- The Comparative Method Based on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for Assessing the Hemodynamic Significance of Coronary Artery Stenosis.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2023Article
- A computational model for predicting changes in infection dynamics due to leakage through N95 respirators.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- A content analysis-based approach to explore simulation verification and identify its current challenges.PloS one · 2020Article
- Advances in Computational Human Phantoms and Their Applications in Biomedical Engineering - A Topical Review.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2019Article
- Credibility, Replicability, and Reproducibility in Simulation for Biomedicine and Clinical Applications in Neuroscience.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2018Review
- Advancing Regulatory Science With Computational Modeling for Medical Devices at the FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Assessing Computational Model Credibility Using a Risk-Based Framework: Application to Hemolysis in Centrifugal Blood Pumps.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992)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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A "credible" computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model has the potential to provide a meaningful evaluation of safety in medical devices. One major challenge in establishing "model credibility" is to determine the required degree of similarity between the model and experimental results for the model to be considered sufficiently validated. This study proposes a "threshold-based" validation approach that provides a well-defined acceptance criteria, which is a function of how close the simulation and experimental results are to the safety threshold, for establishing the model validity. The validation criteria developed following the threshold approach is not only a function of Comparison Error, E (which is the difference between experiments and simulations) but also takes in to account the risk to patient safety because of E. The method is applicable for scenarios in which a safety threshold can be clearly defined (e.g., the viscous shear-stress threshold for hemolysis in blood contacting devices). The applicability of the new validation approach was tested on the FDA nozzle geometry. The context of use (COU) was to evaluate if the instantaneous viscous shear stress in the nozzle geometry at Reynolds numbers (Re) of 3500 and 6500 was below the commonly accepted threshold for hemolysis. The CFD results ("S") of velocity and viscous shear stress were compared with inter-laboratory experimental measurements ("D"). The uncertainties in the CFD and experimental results due to input parameter uncertainties were quantified following the ASME V&V 20 standard. The CFD models for both Re = 3500 and 6500 could not be sufficiently validated by performing a direct comparison between CFD and experimental results using the Student's t-test. However, following the threshold-based approach, a Student's t-test comparing |S-D| and |Threshold-S| showed that relative to the threshold, the CFD and experimental datasets for Re = 3500 were statistically similar and the model could be considered sufficiently validated for the COU. However, for Re = 6500, at certain locations where the shear stress is close the hemolysis threshold, the CFD model could not be considered sufficiently validated for the COU. Our analysis showed that the model could be sufficiently validated either by reducing the uncertainties in experiments, simulations, and the threshold or by increasing the sample size for the experiments and simulations. The threshold approach can be applied to all types of computational models and provides an objective way of determining model credibility and for evaluating medical devices.
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.