ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2024
Computational Hemodynamics-Based Growth Prediction for Small Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Laminar Simulations Versus Large Eddy Simulations.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Hypertension Persistence in Coarctation of the Aorta: A Feasibility Study.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Quantitative evaluation of computational fluid dynamics application development in the cardiovascular field through literature retrieval and bibliometric analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2026Review
- Computational fluid dynamics modelling of hemodynamics in aortic aneurysm and dissection: a review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior studies have shown that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations help assess patient-specific hemodynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs); patient-specific hemodynamic stressors are frequently used to predict an AAA's growth. Previous studies have utilized both laminar and turbulent simulation models to simulate hemodynamics. However, the impact of different CFD simulation models on the predictive modeling of AAA growth remains unknown and is thus the knowledge gap that motivates this study. Specifically, CFD simulations were performed for 70 AAA models derived from 70 patients' computed tomography angiography (CTA) data with known growth status (i.e., fast-growing [> 5 mm/yr] or slowly growing [< 5 mm/yr]). We used laminar and large eddy simulation (LES) models to obtain hemodynamic parameters to predict AAAs' growth status. Predicting the growth status of AAAs was based on morphological, hemodynamic, and patient health parameters in conjunction with three classical machine learning (ML) classifiers, namely, support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN), and generalized linear model (GLM). Our preliminary results estimated aneurysmal flow stability and wall shear stress (WSS) were comparable in both laminar and LES flow simulations. Moreover, computed WSS and velocity-related hemodynamic variables obtained from the laminar and LES simulations showed comparable abilities in differentiating the growth status of AAAs. More importantly, the predictive modeling performance of the three ML classifiers mentioned above was similar, with less than a 2% difference observed (p-value > 0.05). In closing, our findings suggest that two different flow simulations investigated did not significantly affect outcomes of computational hemodynamics and predictive modeling of AAAs' growth status, given the data investigated.
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.