To reproduce realistic airway motion and airflow, the authors developed a deforming lung computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on four-dimensional (4D, space and time) dynamic computed tomography (CT) images. A total of 13 time points within controlled tidal volume respiration were used to account for realistic and irregular lung motion in human volunteers. Because of the irregular motion of 4DCT-based airways, we identified an optimal interpolation method for airway surface deformation during respiration, and implemented a computational solid mechanics-based moving mesh algorithm to produce smooth deforming airway mesh. In addition, we developed physiologically realistic airflow boundary conditions for both models based on multiple images and a single image. Furthermore, we examined simplified models based on one or two dynamic or static images. By comparing these simplified models with the model based on 13 dynamic images, we investigated the effects of relative hysteresis of lung structure with respect to lung volume, lung deformation, and imaging methods, i.e., dynamic vs. static scans, on CFD-predicted pressure drop. The effect of imaging method on pressure drop was 24 percentage points due to the differences in airflow distribution and airway geometry.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,157,392
of 27,781,301 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Computational Physics
#2,007
of 5,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,639
of 316,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Computational Physics
#20
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,781,301 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 316,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
