Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996617›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026

Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry.

Marco Atzori, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Maurizio Quadrio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Marco AtzoriDepartment of Aerospace Science and Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Milano, 20156, Italy. marco.atzori@polimi.it.
Gabriele Dini CiacciDepartment of Aerospace Science and Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Milano, 20156, Italy.
Maurizio QuadrioDepartment of Aerospace Science and Technology, Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Milano, 20156, Italy. maurizio.quadrio@polimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-3576

Funding

Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca PRIN 2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationRhinomanometryHumansModels, AnatomicNasal CavityNosePressureComputational fluid dynamicsNasal obstructionNasal resistanceRhinomanometry

Identifiers

PMID40996617
PMCPMC12868048

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.