Accurate Prediction of Wall Shear Stress in a Stented Artery: Newtonian Versus Non-Newtonian Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant amount of evidence linking wall shear stress to neointimal hyperplasia has been reported in the literature. As a result, numerical and experimental models have been created to study the influence of stent design on wall shear stress. Traditionally, blood has been assumed to behave as a Newtonian fluid, but recently that assumption has been challenged. The use of a linear model; however, can reduce computational cost, and allow the use of Newtonian fluids (e.g., glycerine and water) instead of a blood analog fluid in an experimental setup. Therefore, it is of interest whether a linear model can be used to accurately predict the wall shear stress caused by a non-Newtonian fluid such as blood within a stented arterial segment. The present work compares the resulting wall shear stress obtained using two linear and one nonlinear model under the same flow waveform. All numerical models are fully three-dimensional, transient, and incorporate a realistic stent geometry. It is shown that traditional linear models (based on blood's lowest viscosity limit, 3.5 Pa s) underestimate the wall shear stress within a stented arterial segment, which can lead to an overestimation of the risk of restenosis. The second linear model, which uses a characteristic viscosity (based on an average strain rate, 4.7 Pa s), results in higher wall shear stress levels, but which are still substantially below those of the nonlinear model. It is therefore shown that nonlinear models result in more accurate predictions of wall shear stress within a stented arterial segment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".