ArticleJournal of biomechanics2023
Flow-based method demonstrates improved accuracy for calculating wall shear stress in arterial flows from 4D flow MRI data.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Specific Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulations Suggest Wall-Shear-Stress-Related Biomarkers in Type B Dissection Associated with Marfan Syndrome.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Computational Modeling Meets 3D Bioprinting: Emerging Synergies in Cardiovascular Disease Modeling.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Review
- Cerebrospinal fluid mechanics across CNS barriers: from production, circulation, and clearance to mechanomedicine.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Automated identification, hemodynamic visualisation and quantification of abdominal aortic aneurysms with 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Left atrial wall shear stress correlates with fibrosis in patients with atrial fibrillation.Nature cardiovascular research · 2025Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging (i.e., 4D flow MRI) has become a valuable tool for the in vivo assessment of blood flow within large vessels and cardiac chambers. As wall shear stress (WSS) has been correlated with the development and progression of cardiovascular disease, focus has been directed at developing techniques to quantify WSS directly from 4D flow MRI data. The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy of two such techniques - termed the velocity and flow-based methods - in the setting of simplified and complex flow scenarios. Synthetic MR data were created from exact solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations for the steady and pulsatile flow of an incompressible, Newtonian fluid through a rigid cylinder. In addition, synthetic MR data were created from the predicted velocity fields derived from a fluid-structure interaction (FSI) model of pulsatile flow through a thick-walled, multi-layered model of the carotid bifurcation. Compared to the analytical solutions for steady and pulsatile flow, the flow-based method demonstrated greater accuracy than the velocity-based method in calculating WSS across all changes in fluid velocity/flow rate, tube radius, and image signal-to-noise (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the velocity-based method was more sensitive to boundary segmentation than the flow-based method. When compared to results from the FSI model, the flow-based method demonstrated greater accuracy than the velocity-based method with average differences in time-averaged WSS of 0.31 ± 1.03 Pa and 0.45 ± 1.03 Pa, respectively (p <0.005). These results have implications on the utility, accuracy, and clinical translational of methods to determine WSS from 4D flow MRI.
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.