Validation of CTA-based closed-loop coronary artery flow simulations against intravascular Doppler velocity and pressure measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The modeling assumptions involved in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations of coronary arteries using coronary computed angiography (CTA) have not been thoroughly validated. These modeling assumptions can lead to uncertainties in simulated velocities and pressure, and consequently, other hemodynamic markers, such as wall shear stresses. In this study, we validated a state-of-the-art coronary CTA-CFD simulation strategy against intravascular Doppler velocity and pressure measurements. METHODS: 3D coronary models were reconstructed using coronary CTA in 13 patients. Intravascular Doppler velocities and pressures were obtained in 18 arteries over 120 ± 55 cardiac cycles to validate CTA-CFD simulations. A lumped parameter network (LPN) was tuned to capture each patient's heart and distal coronary circulation, and coupled to the CFD solver. For each patient, Murray's Law coefficient was varied from 2.0 to 3.0 in increments of 0.2. The simulated velocities and pressures were compared to intravascular measurements. RESULTS: The correlation between intravascular and CTA-CFD parameters showed no statistically significant correlation for velocity (r=-0.13 and p = 0.60), while both flow rates (r = 0.77, p < 0.01) and pressures (r = 0.88, p < 0.01) demonstrated strong correlation and statistical significance. When considering the intra-patient cycle-to-cycle variabilities in invasive measurements, velocity in 11 of 18 and pressures in 7 of 18 coronary arteries were within one standard deviation of intravascular measurement variability. CONCLUSION: CTA-CFD simulations showed statistically significant correlations for intravascular flows and pressures, whereas no meaningful correlation was observed for velocity. These findings highlight the influence of measurement variability and modeling assumptions. Future studies should consider the inherent uncertainties in CTA-CFD, especially when estimating absolute hemodynamic parameters such as velocity and pressure, and aim to refine boundary conditions and validation strategies to improve accuracy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".