Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35982840›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2022

CFD simulations of respiratory airflow in human upper airways response to walking and running for oral breathing condition.

Endalew Getnet Tsega

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Forward Computational Modeling of Respiratory Airflow.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Endalew Getnet TsegaDepartment of Mathematics, College of Science, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Bahir Dar University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Walking and running are common types of physical activities that people do in day to day living, to improve health and physical fitness or for recreation. During a physical activity, rate and depth of breathing increase because working muscles need extra oxygen in order to produce energy. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were used to investigate respiratory airflow dynamics in human upper airways response to walking and running for oral breathing. The numerical simulations were done in a realistic CT-scan airway model using ANAYS Fluent 19.0 software. Flow fields were analysed numerically and flow patterns were investigated in the airway model during inspiration and expiration response to walking and running. The axial velocity distributions and secondary flow patterns for the two respiratory phases were analysed response to the two physical activities at different cross-sections of the airway model. The maximum velocity, wall pressure and wall shear stress values for running were respectively 3.2, 9.4 and 5.9 times higher than that of walking during inspiration. The mixing of flow streamlines was observed to be higher during running than walking because of more significant turbulence. More skewed flows at airway curvatures were observed at inspiration than expiration. The results of this study supported the fact that running is a more intense activity than walking from a respiratory dynamics point of view.

Indexed as

Airway modelCFDFlow fieldsNumerical simulationRespiratory airflowRunningWalking

Identifiers

PMID35982840
PMCPMC9379579
OpenAlexW4286511230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.