ArticleComputer methods in applied mechanics and engineering2020
Multilevel and multifidelity uncertainty quantification for cardiovascular hemodynamics.
Article in Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Uncertainty Quantification into Computational Fluid Dynamics Models of Coronary Arteries Under Steady Flow.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2026Article
- Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Cerebrovascular Hemodynamic Differences in Adults with Sickle Cell Disease: Comparing Stroke and Non-Stroke Cohorts.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Physics-Informed Neural Operators for Parameter Inference in Multi-vessel Cardiovascular Networks.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Computational Modeling Meets 3D Bioprinting: Emerging Synergies in Cardiovascular Disease Modeling.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- On the accuracy of implicit neural representations for cardiovascular anatomies and hemodynamic fields.Computers in biology and medicine · 2026Article
- On the performance of multi-fidelity and reduced-dimensional neural emulators for inference of physiological boundary conditions.Computers in biology and medicine · 2026Article
- Personalized and uncertainty-aware coronary hemodynamics simulations: From Bayesian estimation to improved multi-fidelity uncertainty quantification.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2025Article
- Predicting Cerebral Aneurysm Rupture: The Role of Computational Fluid Dynamics.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Quantification of total uncertainty in the physics-informed reconstruction of CVSim-6 physiology.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Challenges and opportunities in uncertainty quantification for healthcare and biological systems.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of hemodynamic parameters in left coronary artery bifurcation: A CFD approach.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Survey and perspective on verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification of digital twins for precision medicine.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- An anatomically informed computational fluid dynamics modeling approach for quantifying hemodynamics in the developing heart.PloS one · 2025Article
- Establishing the longitudinal hemodynamic mapping framework for wearable-driven coronary digital twins.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Improved multifidelity Monte Carlo estimators based on normalizing flows and dimensionality reduction techniques.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2024Article
- Quantification of total uncertainty in the physics-informed reconstruction of CVSim-6 physiology.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Reconstructing blood flow in data-poor regimes: a vasculature network kernel for Gaussian process regression.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Article
- Branched Latent Neural Maps.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standard approaches for uncertainty quantification in cardiovascular modeling pose challenges due to the large number of uncertain inputs and the significant computational cost of realistic three-dimensional simulations. We propose an efficient uncertainty quantification framework utilizing a multilevel multifidelity Monte Carlo (MLMF) estimator to improve the accuracy of hemodynamic quantities of interest while maintaining reasonable computational cost. This is achieved by leveraging three cardiovascular model fidelities, each with varying spatial resolution to rigorously quantify the variability in hemodynamic outputs. We employ two low-fidelity models (zero- and one-dimensional) to construct several different estimators. Our goal is to investigate and compare the efficiency of estimators built from combinations of these two low-fidelity model alternatives and our high-fidelity three-dimensional models. We demonstrate this framework on healthy and diseased models of aortic and coronary anatomy, including uncertainties in material property and boundary condition parameters. Our goal is to demonstrate that for this application it is possible to accelerate the convergence of the estimators by utilizing a MLMF paradigm. Therefore, we compare our approach to single fidelity Monte Carlo estimators and to a multilevel Monte Carlo approach based only on three-dimensional simulations, but leveraging multiple spatial resolutions. We demonstrate significant, on the order of 10 to 100 times, reduction in total computational cost with the MLMF estimators. We also examine the differing properties of the MLMF estimators in healthy versus diseased models, as well as global versus local quantities of interest. As expected, global quantities such as outlet pressure and flow show larger reductions than local quantities, such as those relating to wall shear stress, as the latter rely more heavily on the highest fidelity model evaluations. Similarly, healthy models show larger reductions than diseased models. In all cases, our workflow coupling Dakota's MLMF estimators with the SimVascular cardiovascular modeling framework makes uncertainty quantification feasible for constrained computational budgets.
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.