ArticleJournal of biomechanical engineering2018
Modeling Inspiratory Flow in a Porcine Lung Airway.
Article in Journal of biomechanical engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational fluid dynamics comparison of the upper airway velocity, pressure, and resistance in cats using an endotracheal tube or a supraglottic airway device.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Body Acoustics for the Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Medical Conditions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Evaluation of sex-based differences in airway size and the physiological implications.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Review
- In Vivo Characterization of the Swine Airway Morphometry and Motion Based on Computed Tomographic Imaging During Respiration.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2020Article
- Adverse Hemodynamic Conditions Associated with Mechanical Heart Valve Leaflet Immobility.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inspiratory flow in a multigeneration pig lung airways was numerically studied at a steady inlet flow rate of 3.2 × 10-4 m3/s corresponding to a Reynolds number of 1150 in the trachea. The model was validated by comparing velocity distributions with previous measurements and simulations in simplified airway geometries. Simulation results provided detailed maps of the axial and secondary flow patterns at different cross sections of the airway tree. The vortex core regions in the airways were visualized using absolute helicity values and suggested the presence of secondary flow vortices where two counter-rotating vortices were observed at the main bifurcation and in many other bifurcations. Both laminar and turbulent flows were considered. Results showed that axial and secondary flows were comparable in the laminar and turbulent cases. Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) vanished in the more distal airways, which indicates that the flow in these airways approaches laminar flow conditions. The simulation results suggested viscous pressure drop values comparable to earlier studies. The monopodial asymmetric nature of airway branching in pigs resulted in airflow patterns that are different from the less asymmetric human airways. The major daughters of the pig airways tended to have high airflow ratios, which may lead to different particle distribution and sound generation patterns. These differences need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results of animal studies involving pigs before generalizing these results to humans.
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.