4.7 Article

Uncertainty quantification implementations in human hemodynamic flows

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106021

关键词

Biomedical sciences; Hemodynamic flows; Uncertainty quantification; Polynomial chaos; Computational fluid dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzes recent research efforts and directions in implementing Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) in human hemodynamic flows, emphasizing the importance of finding the best statistical methods and parameters to represent uncertainties and achieve good interpretation of input-output interactions.
Background and objective: Human hemodynamic modeling is usually influenced by uncertainties occurring from a considerable unavailability of information linked to the boundary conditions and the physical properties used in the numerical models. Calculating the effect of these uncertainties on the numerical findings along the cardiovascular system is a demanding process due to the complexity of the morphology of the body and the area dynamics. To cope with all these difficulties, Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods seem to be an ideal tool. Results: This study focuses on analyzing and summarizing some of the recent research effort s and directions of implementing UQ in human hemodynamic flows by analyzing 139 research papers. Initially, the suitability of applying this approach is analyzed and demonstrated. Then, an overview of the most significant research work in various fields of biomedical hemodynamic engineering is presented. Finally, it is attempted to identify any possible forthcoming directions for research and methodological progress of UQ in biomedical sciences. Conclusion: This review concludes that by finding the best statistical methods and parameters to represent the propagated uncertainties, while achieving a good interpretation of the interaction between input-output, is crucial for implementing UQ in biomedical sciences. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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