Patient-specific lattice-Boltzmann simulations with inflow conditions from magnetic resonance velocimetry measurements for analyzing cerebral aneurysms

IF 7 2区 医学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Mario Rüttgers , Moritz Waldmann , Shota Ito , Carolin Wüstenhagen , Sven Grundmann , Martin Brede , Andreas Lintermann
{"title":"Patient-specific lattice-Boltzmann simulations with inflow conditions from magnetic resonance velocimetry measurements for analyzing cerebral aneurysms","authors":"Mario Rüttgers ,&nbsp;Moritz Waldmann ,&nbsp;Shota Ito ,&nbsp;Carolin Wüstenhagen ,&nbsp;Sven Grundmann ,&nbsp;Martin Brede ,&nbsp;Andreas Lintermann","doi":"10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) measurements were used as inflow conditions for lattice-Boltzmann (LB) simulations to analyze cerebral aneurysms. Unlike previous studies on larger vascular structures, aneurysm analysis involves smaller scales and higher pressure differences, making near-wall velocity measurements challenging with standard 3 Tesla scanners. To address this, the aneurysm geometry was scaled 5-fold for sufficient magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) resolution, with inflow measurements interpolated onto the simulation grid while ensuring dimensionless equivalence via the Reynolds number. Zero-velocity points were included near walls to enforce the no-slip condition if measurement points exceed the simulation domain. The proposed interpolation-based inflow method was compared to a nearest-neighbor approach and a parabolic velocity profile. It achieved the best agreement with MRV centerline velocity measurements (mean error: 3.12%), followed by the nearest-neighbor method (3.18%) and the parabolic profile (9.85%). The parabolic inflow led to centerline velocity overpredictions and total pressure underpredictions, while the nearest-neighbor approach underestimated the wall shear stress (WSS) and exhibited inconsistencies in wall normal stress (e.g., maximum WSS was 18.3% lower than with interpolation). Using the interpolated inflow method, Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows based on the Carreau–Yasuda model were compared. The non-Newtonian model showed lower centerline velocities and total pressure but higher WSS than the Newtonian case. These findings highlight the importance of accurate, patient-specific inflow conditions and the necessity of non-Newtonian modeling for reliable WSS predictions. Combining MRV measurements with non-Newtonian LB simulations provides a robust framework for personalized cerebral aneurysm hemodynamic evaluation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10578,"journal":{"name":"Computers in biology and medicine","volume":"187 ","pages":"Article 109794"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in biology and medicine","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525001441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) measurements were used as inflow conditions for lattice-Boltzmann (LB) simulations to analyze cerebral aneurysms. Unlike previous studies on larger vascular structures, aneurysm analysis involves smaller scales and higher pressure differences, making near-wall velocity measurements challenging with standard 3 Tesla scanners. To address this, the aneurysm geometry was scaled 5-fold for sufficient magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV) resolution, with inflow measurements interpolated onto the simulation grid while ensuring dimensionless equivalence via the Reynolds number. Zero-velocity points were included near walls to enforce the no-slip condition if measurement points exceed the simulation domain. The proposed interpolation-based inflow method was compared to a nearest-neighbor approach and a parabolic velocity profile. It achieved the best agreement with MRV centerline velocity measurements (mean error: 3.12%), followed by the nearest-neighbor method (3.18%) and the parabolic profile (9.85%). The parabolic inflow led to centerline velocity overpredictions and total pressure underpredictions, while the nearest-neighbor approach underestimated the wall shear stress (WSS) and exhibited inconsistencies in wall normal stress (e.g., maximum WSS was 18.3% lower than with interpolation). Using the interpolated inflow method, Newtonian and non-Newtonian flows based on the Carreau–Yasuda model were compared. The non-Newtonian model showed lower centerline velocities and total pressure but higher WSS than the Newtonian case. These findings highlight the importance of accurate, patient-specific inflow conditions and the necessity of non-Newtonian modeling for reliable WSS predictions. Combining MRV measurements with non-Newtonian LB simulations provides a robust framework for personalized cerebral aneurysm hemodynamic evaluation.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computers in biology and medicine
Computers in biology and medicine 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
10.40%
发文量
1086
审稿时长
74 days
期刊介绍: Computers in Biology and Medicine is an international forum for sharing groundbreaking advancements in the use of computers in bioscience and medicine. This journal serves as a medium for communicating essential research, instruction, ideas, and information regarding the rapidly evolving field of computer applications in these domains. By encouraging the exchange of knowledge, we aim to facilitate progress and innovation in the utilization of computers in biology and medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信