ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2017
Methodology for Computational Fluid Dynamic Validation for Medical Use: Application to Intracranial Aneurysm.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances of PDMS In Vitro Biomodels for Flow Visualizations and Measurements: From Macro to Nanoscale Applications.Micromachines · 2024Review
- Validation of ultrasound velocimetry and computational fluid dynamics for flow assessment in femoral artery stenotic disease.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
- Slow blood-flow in the left atrial appendage is associated with stroke in atrial fibrillation patients.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Hemodynamic characteristics in a cerebral aneurysm model using non-Newtonian blood analogues.Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994) · 2022Article
- Properties and Applications of PDMS for Biomedical Engineering: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Review
- Cerebral aneurysm flow diverter modeled as a thin inhomogeneous porous medium in hemodynamic simulations.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Presence of Left Atrial Fibrosis May Contribute to Aberrant Hemodynamics and Increased Risk of Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a Desktop 3D Printed Rigid Refractive-Indexed-Matched Flow Phantom for PIV Measurements on Cerebral Aneurysms.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2020Article
- Multiple Aneurysms AnaTomy CHallenge 2018 (MATCH)-phase II: rupture risk assessment.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2019Article
- Ostium Ratio and Neck Ratio Could Predict the Outcome of Sidewall Intracranial Aneurysms Treated with Flow Diverters.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019Article
- Improving accuracy for finite element modeling of endovascular coiling of intracranial aneurysm.PloS one · 2019Article
- Modeling hemodynamics in intracranial aneurysms: Comparing accuracy of CFD solvers based on finite element and finite volume schemes.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2018Article
- Computational Fluid Dynamics as an Engineering Tool for the Reconstruction of Hemodynamics after Carotid Artery Stenosis Operation: A Case Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.