ArticlePeerJ2025
Comparison of blood viscosity models in different degrees of carotid artery stenosis.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Haemodynamic and biomechanical biomarker analysis of carotid fibromuscular dysplasia via fluid-structure interaction.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Carotid atherosclerotic vascular disease significantly contributes to strokes, presenting a heightened risk of early recurrent ischemia. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has shown potential in predicting subsequent stroke recurrence in patients with carotid stenosis. Objective: This study aims to investigate the differences in computational time and accuracy of four key hemodynamic indices-wall shear stress (WSS), time-averaged wall shear stress (TAWSS), Oscillatory Shear Index (OSI), and relative residence time (RRT)-across different viscosity models, thereby providing optimal model selection for clinical cases and offering guidance for clinicians' decision-making. Methods: A three-dimensional vessel model was established using computed tomography angiography (CTA), followed by CFD simulations to calculate WSS, TAWSS, OSI, and RRT. The accuracy of the simulations was validated by comparing the results with those from Razavi et al. (10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.04.023). Numerical errors in different parameters under varying stenosis levels and viscosity models were analyzed. Results: In the transient state, when degree of stenosis is 38%, 72%-84%, the performance difference between the two is less than 6%. For TAWSS, the difference is 0% when degree of stenosis is 12%, 18%, 26%, 54%, and 76%. For OSI, the difference is 0% when stenosis is 16%, 18%, 26%. For RRT, the difference between the two is 0% when degree of stenosis is 18% and 84%. WSS exhibited an increasing trend with higher degrees of stenosis. TAWSS demonstrated significant variation in moderate to severe stenosis, while OSI increased markedly in cases of moderate to severe stenosis. High RRT values in severely stenotic regions indicated a propensity for atherosclerotic lesion development. Conclusion: This study systematically quantified the discrepancies between Newtonian and non-Newtonian blood viscosity models in predicting hemodynamic parameters across different degrees of carotid artery stenosis. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences between the two models in WSS, TAWSS, OSI, and RRT (
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.