Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34431017›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2021

Effects of Uncertainty of Outlet Boundary Conditions in a Patient-Specific Case of Aortic Coarctation.

Maria Nicole Antonuccio, Alessandro Mariotti, Benigno Marco Fanni, Katia Capellini, Claudio Capelli, Emilie Sauvage, Simona Celi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Novel Prenatal Pipeline for Three-Dimensional Hemodynamic Modeling of the Fetal Aorta.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Uncertainty quantification of the pressure waveform using a Windkessel model.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Maria Nicole AntonuccioBioCardioLab, Bioengineering Unit - Heart Hospital, Fondazione Toscana "G. Monasterio", Massa, Italy.
Alessandro MariottiCivil and Industrial Engineering Department, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Benigno Marco FanniBioCardioLab, Bioengineering Unit - Heart Hospital, Fondazione Toscana "G. Monasterio", Massa, Italy.
Katia CapelliniBioCardioLab, Bioengineering Unit - Heart Hospital, Fondazione Toscana "G. Monasterio", Massa, Italy.
Claudio CapelliInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College of London, London, UK.
Emilie SauvageInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College of London, London, UK.
Simona CeliBioCardioLab, Bioengineering Unit - Heart Hospital, Fondazione Toscana "G. Monasterio", Massa, Italy. s.celi@ftgm.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7832-0122

Funding

Action Medical Research GN2572British Heart Foundation G/17/6/32797Erasmus+ (Università di Pisa) 19/02/2019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of blood flow are widely used to compute a variety of hemodynamic indicators such as velocity, time-varying wall shear stress, pressure drop, and energy losses. One of the major advances of this approach is that it is non-invasive. The accuracy of the cardiovascular simulations depends directly on the level of certainty on input parameters due to the modelling assumptions or computational settings. Physiologically suitable boundary conditions at the inlet and outlet of the computational domain are needed to perform a patient-specific CFD analysis. These conditions are often affected by uncertainties, whose impact can be quantified through a stochastic approach. A methodology based on a full propagation of the uncertainty from clinical data to model results is proposed here. It was possible to estimate the confidence associated with model predictions, differently than by deterministic simulations. We evaluated the effect of using three-element Windkessel models as the outflow boundary conditions of a patient-specific aortic coarctation model. A parameter was introduced to calibrate the resistances of the Windkessel model at the outlets. The generalized Polynomial Chaos method was adopted to perform the stochastic analysis, starting from a few deterministic simulations. Our results show that the uncertainty of the input parameter gave a remarkable variability on the volume flow rate waveform at the systolic peak simulating the conditions before the treatment. The same uncertain parameter had a slighter effect on other quantities of interest, such as the pressure gradient. Furthermore, the results highlight that the fine-tuning of Windkessel resistances is not necessary to simulate the post-stenting scenario.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsHydrodynamicsModels, CardiovascularPatient-Specific ModelingAortic CoarctationBlood Flow VelocityBlood PressureComputer SimulationHumansStentsStochastic ProcessesStress, MechanicalAortic coarctationComputational fluid dynamicsMagnetic resonance imagingUncertainty quantificationWindkessel model

Identifiers

PMID34431017
PMCPMC8671284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.