Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38589554›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Evaluating the accuracy of cerebrovascular computational fluid dynamics modeling through time-resolved experimental validation.

Claudio A Luisi, Tom L Witter, Omid Nikoubashman, Martin Wiesmann, Ulrich Steinseifer, Michael Neidlin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Claudio A LuisiDepartment of Cardiovascular Engineering, Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 20, 52074, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7298-9864
Tom L WitterDepartment of Cardiovascular Engineering, Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 20, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Omid NikoubashmanClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2055-4217
Martin WiesmannClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8261-5513
Ulrich SteinseiferDepartment of Cardiovascular Engineering, Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 20, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Michael NeidlinDepartment of Cardiovascular Engineering, Institute of Applied Medical Engineering, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstr. 20, 52074, Aachen, Germany. neidlin@ame.rwth-aachen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5582-6905

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate modeling of cerebral hemodynamics is crucial for better understanding the hemodynamics of stroke, for which computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling is a viable tool to obtain information. However, a comprehensive study on the accuracy of cerebrovascular CFD models including both transient arterial pressures and flows does not exist. This study systematically assessed the accuracy of different outlet boundary conditions (BCs) comparing CFD modeling and an in-vitro experiment. The experimental setup consisted of an anatomical cerebrovascular phantom and high-resolution flow and pressure data acquisition. The CFD model of the same cerebrovascular geometry comprised five sets of stationary and transient BCs including established techniques and a novel BC, the phase modulation approach. The experiment produced physiological hemodynamics consistent with reported clinical results for total cerebral blood flow, inlet pressure, flow distribution, and flow pulsatility indices (PI). The in-silico model instead yielded time-dependent deviations between 19-66% for flows and 6-26% for pressures. For cerebrovascular CFD modeling, it is recommended to avoid stationary outlet pressure BCs, which caused the highest deviations. The Windkessel and the phase modulation BCs provided realistic flow PI values and cerebrovascular pressures, respectively. However, this study shows that the accuracy of current cerebrovascular CFD models is limited.

Indexed as

HemodynamicsHydrodynamicsArterial PressureBlood Flow VelocityCerebrovascular CirculationComputer SimulationModels, Cardiovascular

Identifiers

PMID38589554
PMCPMC11001858

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.