MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076567530 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2014.2373399

Improving the Stability of Cardiac Mechanical Simulations

2014· article· en· W2076567530 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sander Land, Steven Niederer, Pablo Lamata, Nicolas P. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilRoyal Society of CanadaRoyal SocietyEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsSolverDiscretizationCompressibilityPenalty methodFinite element methodHyperelastic materialComputer scienceNonlinear systemMechanicsConvergence (economics)Context (archaeology)Applied mathematicsMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisStructural engineeringEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of cardiac modeling, the mechanical action of the heart is often simulated using finite element methods. These simulations are becoming increasingly challenging as the computational domain is customized to a patient's anatomy, within which large heterogeneous tension gradients are generated via biophysical cell models which drive simulations of the cardiac pump cycle. The convergence of nonlinear solvers in simulations of large deformation mechanics depends on many factors. When extreme stress or irregular deformations are modeled, commonly used numerical methods can often fail to find a solution, which can prevent investigation of interesting parameter variations or use of models in a clinical context with high standards for robustness. This paper outlines a novel numerical method that is straightforward to implement and which significantly improves the stability of these simulations. The method involves adding a compressibility penalty to the standard incompressible formulation of large deformation mechanics. We compare the method's performance when used with both a direct discretization of the equations for incompressible solid mechanics, as well as the formulation based on an isochoric/deviatoric split of the deformation gradient. The addition of this penalty decreases the tendency for solutions to deviate from the incompressibility constraint, and significantly improves the ability of the Newton solver to find a solution. Additionally, our method maintains the expected order of convergence under mesh refinement, has nearly identical solutions for the pressure-volume relations, and stabilizes the solver to allow challenging simulations of both diastolic and systolic function on personalized patient geometries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207