↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Patient-Specific Cerebral Blood Flow Simulation Using Transcranial Doppler Measurements

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Validation of Patient-Specific Cerebral Blood Flow Simulation Using Transcranial Doppler Measurements
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derek Groen, Robin A. Richardson, Rachel Coy, Ulf D. Schiller, Hoskote Chandrashekar, Fergus Robertson, Peter V. Coveney

Abstract

We present a validation study comparing results from a patient-specific lattice-Boltzmann simulation to transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity measurements in four different planes of the middle cerebral artery (MCA). As part of the study, we compared simulations using a Newtonian and a Carreau-Yasuda rheology model. We also investigated the viability of using downscaled velocities to reduce the required resolution. Simulations with unscaled velocities predict the maximum flow velocity with an error of less than 9%, independent of the rheology model chosen. The accuracy of the simulation predictions worsens considerably when simulations are run at reduced velocity, as is for example the case when inflow velocities from healthy individuals are used on a vascular model of a stroke patient. Our results demonstrate the importance of using directly measured and patient-specific inflow velocities when simulating blood flow in MCAs. We conclude that localized TCD measurements together with predictive simulations can be used to obtain flow estimates with high fidelity over a larger region, and reduce the need for more invasive flow measurement procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 19 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 12%
Computer Science 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 23 46%
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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,255,433
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,479
of 13,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,465
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#183
of 523 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 328,030 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 523 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 64% of its contemporaries.