A PIV COMPARISON OF THE FLOW FIELD AND WALL SHEAR STRESS IN RIGID AND COMPLIANT MODELS OF HEALTHY CAROTID ARTERIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain systems relevant to circulatory disease have walls which are neither rigid nor static, for example, the coronary arteries, the carotid artery and the heart chambers. In vitro modeling allows the fluid mechanics of the circulatory system to be studied without the ethical and safety issues associated with animal and human experiments. Computational methods in which the equations are coupled governing the flow and the elastic walls are maturing. Currently there is a lack of experimental data in compliant arterial systems to validate the numerical predictions. Previous experimental work has commonly used rigid wall boundaries, ignoring the effect of wall compliance. Particle Image Velocimetry is used to provide a direct comparison of both the flow field and wall shear stress (WSS) observed in experimental phantoms of rigid and compliant geometries representing an idealized common carotid artery. The input flow waveform and the mechanical response of the phantom are physiologically realistic. The results show that compliance affects the velocity profile within the artery. A rigid boundary causes severe overestimation of the peak WSS with a maximum relative difference of 61% occurring; showing compliance protects the artery from exposure to high magnitude WSS. This is important when trying to understand the development of diseases like atherosclerosis. The maximum, minimum and time averaged WSS in the rigid geometry was 2.3, 0.51 and 1.03[Formula: see text]Pa and in the compliant geometry 1.4, 0.58 and 0.84[Formula: see text]Pa, respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".