↓ Skip to main content

Using 4D Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Validate Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Case Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using 4D Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Validate Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Case Study
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fped.2015.00107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Biglino, Daria Cosentino, Jennifer A. Steeden, Lorenzo De Nova, Matteo Castelli, Hopewell Ntsinjana, Giancarlo Pennati, Andrew M. Taylor, Silvia Schievano

Abstract

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can have a complementary predictive role alongside the exquisite visualization capabilities of 4D cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. In order to exploit these capabilities (e.g., for decision-making), it is necessary to validate computational models against real world data. In this study, we sought to acquire 4D CMR flow data in a controllable, experimental setup and use these data to validate a corresponding computational model. We applied this paradigm to a case of congenital heart disease, namely, transposition of the great arteries (TGA) repaired with arterial switch operation. For this purpose, a mock circulatory loop compatible with the CMR environment was constructed and two detailed aortic 3D models (i.e., one TGA case and one normal aortic anatomy) were tested under realistic hemodynamic conditions, acquiring 4D CMR flow. The same 3D domains were used for multi-scale CFD simulations, whereby the remainder of the mock circulatory system was appropriately summarized with a lumped parameter network. Boundary conditions of the simulations mirrored those measured in vitro. Results showed a very good quantitative agreement between experimental and computational models in terms of pressure (overall maximum % error = 4.4% aortic pressure in the control anatomy) and flow distribution data (overall maximum % error = 3.6% at the subclavian artery outlet of the TGA model). Very good qualitative agreement could also be appreciated in terms of streamlines, throughout the cardiac cycle. Additionally, velocity vectors in the ascending aorta revealed less symmetrical flow in the TGA model, which also exhibited higher wall shear stress in the anterior ascending aorta.

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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 22%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 35 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Computer Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,758,337
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#1,860
of 5,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,817
of 389,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#9
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 389,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 67% of its contemporaries.