Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28857116›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2017

Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamic Validation for Medical Use: Application to Intracranial Aneurysm.

Nikhil Paliwal, Robert J Damiano, Nicole A Varble, Vincent M Tutino, Zhongwang Dou, Adnan H Siddiqui, Hui Meng

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-phase II: rupture risk assessment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Nikhil PaliwalDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Robert J DamianoDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Nicole A VarbleDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Vincent M TutinoToshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14203.
Zhongwang DouDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Adnan H SiddiquiToshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260.
Hui MengDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, 324 Jarvis Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260.

Funding

University of Buffalo Clinical and Translational Science Institute - Supplement SchulyerUL1TR001412 · NCATS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MURPHY, TIMOTHY F · 2015 to 2024
$33.8M
Virtual Intervention of Intracranial AneurysmsR01NS091075 · NINDS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MENG, HUI · 2015 to 2019
$1.7M
AView: A Bedside Simulation Tool for Neurovascular InterventionR03NS090193 · NINDS · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI MENG, HUI · 2015 to 2016
$157k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001412NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS091075NINDS NIH HHS R03 NS090193
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a promising tool to aid in clinical diagnoses of cardiovascular diseases. However, it uses assumptions that simplify the complexities of the real cardiovascular flow. Due to high-stakes in the clinical setting, it is critical to calculate the effect of these assumptions in the CFD simulation results. However, existing CFD validation approaches do not quantify error in the simulation results due to the CFD solver's modeling assumptions. Instead, they directly compare CFD simulation results against validation data. Thus, to quantify the accuracy of a CFD solver, we developed a validation methodology that calculates the CFD model error (arising from modeling assumptions). Our methodology identifies independent error sources in CFD and validation experiments, and calculates the model error by parsing out other sources of error inherent in simulation and experiments. To demonstrate the method, we simulated the flow field of a patient-specific intracranial aneurysm (IA) in the commercial CFD software star-ccm+. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) provided validation datasets for the flow field on two orthogonal planes. The average model error in the star-ccm+ solver was 5.63 ± 5.49% along the intersecting validation line of the orthogonal planes. Furthermore, we demonstrated that our validation method is superior to existing validation approaches by applying three representative existing validation techniques to our CFD and experimental dataset, and comparing the validation results. Our validation methodology offers a streamlined workflow to extract the "true" accuracy of a CFD solver.

Indexed as

HydrodynamicsPatient-Specific ModelingHumansIntracranial AneurysmPhantoms, Imaging

Identifiers

PMID28857116
PMCPMC5686786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.