Mind the Gap: Impact of Computational Fluid Dynamics Solution Strategy on Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Hemodynamics and Rupture Status Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Computational fluid dynamics has become a popular tool for studying intracranial aneurysm hemodynamics, demonstrating success for retrospectively discriminating rupture status; however, recent highly refined simulations suggest potential deficiencies in solution strategies normally used in the aneurysm computational fluid dynamics literature. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of this gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pulsatile flow in 12 realistic MCA aneurysms was simulated by using both high-resolution and normal-resolution strategies. Velocity fields were compared at selected instants via domain-averaged error. We also compared wall shear stress fields and various reduced hemodynamic indices: cycle-averaged mean and maximum wall shear stress, oscillatory shear index, low shear area, viscous dissipation ratio, and kinetic energy ratio. RESULTS: Instantaneous differences in flow and wall shear stress patterns were appreciable, especially for bifurcation aneurysms. Linear regressions revealed strong correlations (R(2) > 0.9) between high-resolution and normal-resolution solutions for all indices except kinetic energy ratio (R(2) = 0.25) and oscillatory shear index (R(2) = 0.23); however, for most indices, the slopes were significantly <1, reflecting a pronounced underestimation by the normal-resolution simulations. Some high-resolution simulations were highly unstable, with fluctuating wall shear stresses reflected by the poor oscillatory shear index correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Typical computational fluid dynamics solution strategies may ultimately be adequate for augmenting rupture risk assessment on the basis of certain highly reduced indices; however, they cannot be relied on for predicting the magnitude and character of the complex biomechanical stimuli to which the aneurysm wall may be exposed. This impact of the computational fluid dynamics solution strategy is likely greater than that for other modeling assumptions or uncertainties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".