Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42846744›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026

Non-Newtonian blood rheology significantly alters hemodynamic predictions during cardiac looping: a computational study.

Matthew C Watson, Erica C Kemmerling, Lauren D Black

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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.

Matthew C WatsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Erica C Kemmerling *Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Lauren D Black *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.

Funding

Dynamic Biological Hydrogels to Modulate Cardiac Remodeling Following Myocardial InfarctionR01HL171396 · NHLBI · TUFTS UNIVERSITY MEDFORD · PI Lauren D. Black III · 2025 to 2026
$770k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL171396
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Hemodynamic forces play a key role in early cardiac morphogenesis, yet many computational studies assume Newtonian blood behavior. Here, we evaluate the impact of non-Newtonian shear-thinning rheology on flow patterns, pressure distributions, and wall shear stress (WSS) during cardiac looping using idealized three-dimensional models of the embryonic heart tube. Methods: Five geometries representing progressive looping stages, from a linear tube to an S-shaped configuration with ventricular ballooning, were analyzed under pulsatile flow using both Newtonian and power-law viscosity models. Results and Discussion: Across all stages, Reynolds numbers (Re ≈ 1-7) and Womersley numbers (Wo ≈ 0.3) indicated laminar, quasi-steady flow consistent with embryonic conditions. Incorporating shear-thinning rheology produced substantial deviations from Newtonian predictions, with peak systolic WSS differing by up to ∼94% (range 64%-94% depending on stage) and pressure drops by up to ∼70% (range 48%-70% depending on stage). These effects were most pronounced in regions of increased curvature and geometric complexity. These findings demonstrate that non-Newtonian rheology can substantially alter predicted hemodynamic quantities during cardiac looping and should therefore be considered in future developmental hemodynamic models, particularly when wall shear stress and pressure magnitudes are used to infer mechanobiological responses.

Indexed as

cardiac loopingembryonic heart developmentnon-Newtonian blood flowshear-thinning rheologywall shear stress

Identifiers

PMID42846744
PMCPMC13643127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.