ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Wave Equation Modeling via Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Models of Soft and Hard Constraints for Initial and Boundary Conditions.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational Modeling of Cardiovascular-Induced Chest Vibrations: A Review and Practical Guide for Seismocardiography Simulation.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2025Review
- Scientific Machine Learning for Guided Wave and Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) Propagation: PgNN, PeNN, PINN, and Neural Operator.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predicting the Early-Age Time-Dependent Behaviors of a Prestressed Concrete Beam by Using Physics-Informed Neural Network.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Soft Sensor Modeling for 3D Transient Temperature Field of Large-Scale Aluminum Alloy Workpieces Based on Multi-Loss Consistency Optimization PINN.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic ultrasound waves are the main instruments used in many noninvasive clinical procedures. They are continuously transforming medical treatments through mechanical and thermal effects. To allow for effective and safe delivery of ultrasound waves, numerical modeling methods such as the Finite Difference Method (FDM) and the Finite Element Method (FEM) are used. However, modeling the acoustic wave equation can result in several computational complications. In this work, we study the accuracy of using Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to solve the wave equation when applying different combinations of initial and boundary conditions (ICs and BCs) constraints. By exploiting the mesh-free nature of PINNs and their prediction speed, we specifically model the wave equation with a continuous time-dependent point source function. Four main models are designed and studied to monitor the effects of soft or hard constraints on the prediction accuracy and performance. The predicted solutions in all the models were compared to an FDM solution for prediction error estimation. The trials of this work reveal that the wave equation modeled by a PINN with soft IC and BC (soft-soft) constraints reflects the lowest prediction error among the four combinations of constraints.
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.