ArticleMagma (New York, N.Y.)2022
Hemodynamics in a three-dimensional printed aortic model: a comparison of four-dimensional phase-contrast magnetic resonance and image-based computational fluid dynamics.
Article in Magma (New York, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Investigation of hemodynamic bulk flow patterns caused by aortic stenosis using a combined 4D Flow MRI-CFD framework.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare an electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated four-dimensional (4D) phase-contrast (PC) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) using variables controlled in a laboratory environment to minimize bias factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 4D PC-MRI were compared with computational fluid dynamics using steady and pulsatile flows at various inlet velocities. Anatomically realistic models for a normal aorta, a penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and an abdominal aortic aneurysm were constructed using a three-dimensional printer.
resultsFor the normal aorta model, the errors in the peak and the average velocities were within 5%. The peak velocities of the penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer and the abdominal aortic aneurysm models displayed a more extensive range of differences because of the high-speed and vortical fluid flows generated by the shape of the blood vessel. However, the average velocities revealed only relatively minor differences.
conclusionsThis study compared the characteristics of PC-MRI and CFD through a phantom study that only included controllable experimental parameters. Based on these results, 4D PC-MRI and CFD are powerful tools for analyzing blood flow patterns in vivo. However, there is room for future developments to improve velocity measurement accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35133539What 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.