Marco Atzori, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Maurizio Quadrio
{"title":"了解体内和硅鼻测量的不匹配。","authors":"Marco Atzori, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Maurizio Quadrio","doi":"10.1007/s11517-025-03450-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.</p>","PeriodicalId":49840,"journal":{"name":"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry.\",\"authors\":\"Marco Atzori, Gabriele Dini Ciacci, Maurizio Quadrio\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11517-025-03450-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49840,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-025-03450-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-025-03450-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding the mismatch between in-vivo and in-silico rhinomanometry.
Numerical simulations and clinical measurements of nasal resistance are in quantitative disagreement. The order of magnitude of this mismatch, that sometimes exceeds 100%, is such that known sources of uncertainty cannot explain it. The goal of the present work is to examine a source of bias introduced by the design of medical devices, which has not been considered until now as a possible explanation. We study the effect of the location of the probe on the rhinomanometer that is meant to measure the ambient pressure. Rhinomanometry is carried out on a 3D silicone model of a patient-specific anatomy; a clinical device and dedicated sensors are employed side-by-side for mutual validation. The same anatomy is also employed for numerical simulations, with approaches spanning a wide range of fidelity levels. We find that the intrinsic uncertainty of the numerical simulations is of minor importance. To the contrary, the position of the pressure tap intended to acquire the external pressure in the clinical device is crucial, and can cause a mismatch comparable to that generally observed between in-silico and in-vivo rhinomanometry data. A source of systematic bias may therefore exist in rhinomanometers, designed under the assumption that measurements of the nasal resistance are unaffected by the flow development within the instruments.
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1963, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing (MBEC) continues to serve the biomedical engineering community, covering the entire spectrum of biomedical and clinical engineering. The journal presents exciting and vital experimental and theoretical developments in biomedical science and technology, and reports on advances in computer-based methodologies in these multidisciplinary subjects. The journal also incorporates new and evolving technologies including cellular engineering and molecular imaging.
MBEC publishes original research articles as well as reviews and technical notes. Its Rapid Communications category focuses on material of immediate value to the readership, while the Controversies section provides a forum to exchange views on selected issues, stimulating a vigorous and informed debate in this exciting and high profile field.
MBEC is an official journal of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE).