4.4 Article

Uncertainty in cardiac myofiber orientation and stiffnesses dominate the variability of left ventricle deformation response

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cnm.3178

关键词

cardiac mechanics; Karhunen-Loeve expansion; polynomial chaos; quasi-Monte Carlo; sensitivity analysis; uncertainty quantification

资金

  1. Nordic Council of Ministers through Nordforsk [74756]
  2. Research Council of Norway through the Center for Cardiological Innovation [203489/250731/F20]
  3. NOTUR [NN9316K]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computational cardiac modelling is a mature area of biomedical computing and is currently evolving from a pure research tool to aiding in clinical decision making. Assessing the reliability of computational model predictions is a key factor for clinical use, and uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis are important parts of such an assessment. In this study, we apply UQ in computational heart mechanics to study uncertainty both in material parameters characterizing global myocardial stiffness and in the local muscle fiber orientation that governs tissue anisotropy. The uncertainty analysis is performed using the polynomial chaos expansion (PCE) method, which is a nonintrusive meta-modeling technique that surrogates the original computational model with a series of orthonormal polynomials over the random input parameter space. In addition, in order to study variability in the muscle fiber architecture, we model the uncertainty in orientation of the fiber field as an approximated random field using a truncated Karhunen-Loeve expansion. The results from the UQ and sensitivity analysis identify clear differences in the impact of various material parameters on global output quantities. Furthermore, our analysis of random field variations in the fiber architecture demonstrate a substantial impact of fiber angle variations on the selected outputs, highlighting the need for accurate assignment of fiber orientation in computational heart mechanics models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据