Variability of Computational Fluid Dynamics Solutions for Pressure and Flow in a Giant Aneurysm: The ASME 2012 Summer Bioengineering Conference CFD Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimulated by a recent controversy regarding pressure drops predicted in a giant aneurysm with a proximal stenosis, the present study sought to assess variability in the prediction of pressures and flow by a wide variety of research groups. In phase I, lumen geometry, flow rates, and fluid properties were specified, leaving each research group to choose their solver, discretization, and solution strategies. Variability was assessed by having each group interpolate their results onto a standardized mesh and centerline. For phase II, a physical model of the geometry was constructed, from which pressure and flow rates were measured. Groups repeated their simulations using a geometry reconstructed from a micro-computed tomography (CT) scan of the physical model with the measured flow rates and fluid properties. Phase I results from 25 groups demonstrated remarkable consistency in the pressure patterns, with the majority predicting peak systolic pressure drops within 8% of each other. Aneurysm sac flow patterns were more variable with only a few groups reporting peak systolic flow instabilities owing to their use of high temporal resolutions. Variability for phase II was comparable, and the median predicted pressure drops were within a few millimeters of mercury of the measured values but only after accounting for submillimeter errors in the reconstruction of the life-sized flow model from micro-CT. In summary, pressure can be predicted with consistency by CFD across a wide range of solvers and solution strategies, but this may not hold true for specific flow patterns or derived quantities. Future challenges are needed and should focus on hemodynamic quantities thought to be of clinical interest.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".