↓ Skip to main content

Uncertainty Quantification of a Multiscale Model for In-Stent Restenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#30 of 190)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Uncertainty Quantification of a Multiscale Model for In-Stent Restenosis
Published in
Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13239-018-00372-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Nikishova, Lourens Veen, Pavel Zun, Alfons G. Hoekstra

Abstract

Coronary artery stenosis, or abnormal narrowing, is a widespread and potentially fatal cardiac disease. After treatment by balloon angioplasty and stenting, restenosis may occur inside the stent due to excessive neointima formation. Simulations of in-stent restenosis can provide new insight into this process. However, uncertainties due to variability in patient-specific parameters must be taken into account. We performed an uncertainty quantification (UQ) study on a complex two-dimensional in-stent restenosis model. We used a quasi-Monte Carlo method for UQ of the neointimal area, and the Sobol sensitivity analysis (SA) to estimate the proportions of aleatory and epistemic uncertainties and to determine the most important input parameters. We observe approximately 30% uncertainty in the mean neointimal area as simulated by the model. Depending on whether a fast initial endothelium recovery occurs, the proportion of the model variance due to natural variability ranges from 15 to 35%. The endothelium regeneration time is identified as the most influential model parameter. The model output contains a moderate quantity of uncertainty, and the model precision can be increased by obtaining a more certain value on the endothelium regeneration time. We conclude that the quasi-Monte Carlo UQ and the Sobol SA are reliable methods for estimating uncertainties in the response of complicated multiscale cardiovascular models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 5 20%
Computer Science 4 16%
Mathematics 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,317,179
of 24,307,517 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology
#30
of 190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,881
of 337,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,307,517 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 190 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.