A comparison of Newtonian and non-Newtonian models for pulsatile blood flow simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mathematical modeling of blood flows in the arteries is an important and challenging problem. This study compares several non-Newtonian blood models with the Newtonian model in simulating pulsatile blood flow through two three-dimensional models of an arterial stenosis and an aneurysm. Four non-Newtonian blood models, namely the Power Law, the Casson, the Carreau, and the Generalized Power Law, as well as the Newtonian model of blood viscosity, are used to investigate the flow effects induced by these different blood constitutive equations. The aim of this study is three-fold: firstly, to investigate the variation in wall shear stress in an artery with a stenosis or aneurysm at different flow rates and degrees of severity; secondly, to compare the various blood models and hence quantify the differences between the models and judge their significance; and lastly, to determine whether the use of the Newtonian blood model is appropriate over a wide range of shear rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".