ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2024
Efficient uncertainty quantification in a spatially multiscale model of pulmonary arterial and venous hemodynamics.
Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human lungs fluid mechanics: an overview of current modelling techniques.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2026Review
- Physics-Informed Emulation of Systemic Circulation for Fast Parameter Estimation and Uncertainty Quantification.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Uncertainty quantification for patient-specific domain in virtual aortic procedures: application to thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025Article
- Assessing parameter identifiability of a hemodynamics PDE model using spectral surrogates and dimension reduction.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- A comparison of Gaussian processes and polynomial chaos emulators in the context of haemodynamic pulse-wave propagation modelling.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2025Article
- Parameter selection and optimization of a computational network model of blood flow in single-ventricle patients.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a debilitating disease that alters the structure and function of both the proximal and distal pulmonary vasculature. This alters pressure-flow relationships in the pulmonary arterial and venous trees, though there is a critical knowledge gap in the relationships between proximal and distal hemodynamics in disease. Multiscale computational models enable simulations in both the proximal and distal vasculature. However, model inputs and measured data are inherently uncertain, requiring a full analysis of the sensitivity and uncertainty of the model. Thus, this study quantifies model sensitivity and output uncertainty in a spatially multiscale, pulse-wave propagation model of pulmonary hemodynamics. The model includes fifteen proximal arteries and twelve proximal veins, connected by a two-sided, structured tree model of the distal vasculature. We use polynomial chaos expansions to expedite sensitivity and uncertainty quantification analyses and provide results for both the proximal and distal vasculature. We quantify uncertainty in blood pressure, blood flow rate, wave intensity, wall shear stress, and cyclic stretch. The latter two are important stimuli for endothelial cell mechanotransduction. We conclude that, while nearly all the parameters in our system have some influence on model predictions, the parameters describing the density of the microvascular beds have the largest effects on all simulated quantities in both the proximal and distal arterial and venous circulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.