MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983513341 · doi:10.1115/1.1894350

One-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Models of Cerebrovascular Flow

2004· article· en· W1983513341 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen Moore, Katherine T. Moorhead, J. Geoffrey Chase, T. David, John Fink

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanterbury District Health BoardAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsCircle of WillisEfferentHagen–Poiseuille equationCerebral arteriesCerebral blood flowCerebral autoregulationBlood flowFlow (mathematics)MechanicsAfferentGeologyComputer scienceAnatomyMedicineBlood pressureAutoregulationPhysicsAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Circle of Willis is a ring-like structure of blood vessels found beneath the hypothalamus at the base of the brain. Its main function is to distribute oxygen-rich arterial blood to the cerebral mass. One-dimensional (1D) and three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models of the Circle of Willis have been created to provide a simulation tool which can potentially be used to identify at-risk cerebral arterial geometries and conditions and replicate clinical scenarios, such as occlusions in afferent arteries and absent circulus vessels. Both models capture cerebral haemodynamic autoregulation using a proportional-integral (PI) controller to modify efferent artery resistances to maintain optimal efferent flow rates for a given circle geometry and afferent blood pressure. The models can be used to identify at-risk cerebral arterial geometries and conditions prior to surgery or other clinical procedures. The 1D model is particularly relevant in this instance, with its fast solution time suitable for real-time clinical decisions. Results show the excellent correlation between models for the transient efferent flux profile. The assumption of strictly Poiseuille flow in the 1D model allows more flow through the geometrically extreme communicating arteries than the 3D model. This discrepancy was overcome by increasing the resistance to flow in the anterior communicating artery in the 1D model to better match the resistance seen in the 3D results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207