ArticleInternational journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering2020
The effects of clinically-derived parametric data uncertainty in patient-specific coronary simulations with deformable walls.
Article in International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of total uncertainty in the physics-informed reconstruction of CVSim-6 physiology.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Hybrid physics-based and data-driven modeling of vascular bifurcation pressure differences.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- Global and local identifiability analysis of a nonlinear biphasic constitutive model in confined compression.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- 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
- Personalized coronary and myocardial blood flow models incorporating CT perfusion imaging and synthetic vascular trees.Npj imaging · 2024Article
- Personalized coronary and myocardial blood flow models incorporating CT perfusion imaging and synthetic vascular trees.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Beyond CFD: Emerging methodologies for predictive simulation in cardiovascular health and disease.Biophysics reviews · 2023Review
- Automated generation of 0D and 1D reduced-order models of patient-specific blood flow.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Uncertainty quantification in cerebral circulation simulations focusing on the collateral flow: Surrogate model approach with machine learning.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Patient-specific fluid-structure simulations of anomalous aortic origin of right coronary arteries.JTCVS techniques · 2022Article
- A 1D-3D Hybrid Model of Patient-Specific Coronary Hemodynamics.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 2022Article
- Geometric Uncertainty in Patient-Specific Cardiovascular Modeling with Convolutional Dropout Networks.Computer methods in applied mechanics and engineering · 2021Article
- Axial variation in flexural stiffness of plant stem segments: measurement methods and the influence of measurement uncertainty.Plant methods · 2021Article
- MULTIFIDELITY ESTIMATORS FOR CORONARY CIRCULATION MODELS UNDER CLINICALLY INFORMED DATA UNCERTAINTY.International journal for uncertainty quantification · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cardiovascular simulations are increasingly used for noninvasive diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, to guide treatment decisions, and in the design of medical devices. Quantitative assessment of the variability of simulation outputs due to input uncertainty is a key step toward further integration of cardiovascular simulations in the clinical workflow. In this study, we present uncertainty quantification in computational models of the coronary circulation to investigate the effect of uncertain parameters, including coronary pressure waveform, intramyocardial pressure, morphometry exponent, and the vascular wall Young's modulus. We employ a left coronary artery model with deformable vessel walls, simulated via an Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian framework for fluid-structure interaction, with a prescribed inlet pressure and open-loop lumped parameter network outlet boundary conditions. Stochastic modeling of the uncertain inputs is determined from intra-coronary catheterization data or gathered from the literature. Uncertainty propagation is performed using several approaches including Monte Carlo, Quasi Monte Carlo sampling, stochastic collocation, and multi-wavelet stochastic expansion. Variabilities in the quantities of interest, including branch pressure, flow, wall shear stress, and wall deformation are assessed. We find that uncertainty in inlet pressures and intramyocardial pressures significantly affect all resulting QoIs, while uncertainty in elastic modulus only affects the mechanical response of the vascular wall. Variability in the morphometry exponent used to distribute the total downstream vascular resistance to the single outlets, has little effect on coronary hemodynamics or wall mechanics. Finally, we compare convergence behaviors of statistics of QoIs using several uncertainty propagation methods on three model benchmark problems and the left coronary simulations. From the simulation results, we conclude that the multi-wavelet stochastic expansion shows superior accuracy and performance against Quasi Monte Carlo and stochastic collocation methods.
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.