Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29858530›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering2018

Modeling hemodynamics in intracranial aneurysms: Comparing accuracy of CFD solvers based on finite element and finite volume schemes.

Lorenzo Botti, Nikhil Paliwal, Pierangelo Conti, Luca Antiga, Hui Meng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Developing anFrontiers in physiology · 2022
    Article
  4. Reliability and accuracy assessment of morphometric measurements obtained with software for three-dimensional reconstruction of brain aneurysms relative to cerebral angiography measures.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

Lorenzo BottiDepartment of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0511-9022
Nikhil PaliwalToshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Pierangelo ContiDepartment of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
Luca AntigaOrobix SRL, Bergamo, Italy.
Hui MengToshiba Stroke and Vascular Research Center, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA.

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

Image-based computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has shown potential to aid in the clinical management of intracranial aneurysms, but its adoption in the clinical practice has been missing, partially because of lack of accuracy assessment and sensitivity analysis. To numerically solve the flow-governing equations, CFD solvers generally rely on 2 spatial discretization schemes: finite volume (FV) and finite element (FE). Since increasingly accurate numerical solutions are obtained by different means, accuracies and computational costs of FV and FE formulations cannot be compared directly. To this end, in this study, we benchmark 2 representative CFD solvers in simulating flow in a patient-specific intracranial aneurysm model: (1) ANSYS Fluent, a commercial FV-based solver, and (2) VMTKLab multidGetto, a discontinuous Galerkin (dG) FE-based solver. The FV solver's accuracy is improved by increasing the spatial mesh resolution (134k, 1.1m, 8.6m, and 68.5m tetrahedral element meshes). The dGFE solver accuracy is increased by increasing the degree of polynomials (first, second, third, and fourth degree) on the base 134k tetrahedral element mesh. Solutions from best FV and dGFE approximations are used as baseline for error quantification. On average, velocity errors for second-best approximations are approximately 1 cm/s for a [0,125] cm/s velocity magnitude field. Results show that high-order dGFE provides better accuracy per degree of freedom but worse accuracy per Jacobian nonzero entry as compared with FV. Cross-comparison of velocity errors demonstrates asymptotic convergence of both solvers to the same numerical solution. Nevertheless, the discrepancy between underresolved velocity fields suggests that mesh independence is reached following different paths.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsModels, CardiovascularBlood Flow VelocityFinite Element AnalysisHumansIntracranial Aneurysmdiscontinuous Galerkin methodfinite volume methodhigh-order accurate hemodynamicsintracranial aneurysm

Identifiers

PMID29858530
PMCPMC6378953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.