Using Gaussian process for velocity reconstruction after coronary stenosis applicable in positron emission particle tracking: An in-silico study
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 18, Issue: 12 December, Page: e0295789
2023
- 4Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures4
- Readers4
Article Description
Accurate velocity reconstruction is essential for assessing coronary artery disease. We propose a Gaussian process method to reconstruct the velocity profile using the sparse data of the positron emission particle tracking (PEPT) in a biological environment, which allows the measurement of tracer particle velocity to infer fluid velocity fields. We investigated the influence of tracer particle quantity and detection time interval on flow reconstruction accuracy. Three models were used to represent different levels of stenosis and anatomical complexity: a narrowed straight tube, an idealized coronary bifurcation with stenosis, and patient-specific coronary arteries with a stenotic left circumflex artery. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), particle tracking, and the Gaussian process of kriging were employed to simulate and reconstruct the pulsatile flow field. The study examined the error and uncertainty in velocity profile reconstruction after stenosis by comparing particle-derived flow velocity with the CFD solution. Using 600 particles (15 batches of 40 particles) released in the main coronary artery, the time-averaged error in velocity reconstruction ranged from 13.4% (no occlusion) to 161% (70% occlusion) in patient-specific anatomy. The error in maximum crosssectional velocity at peak flow was consistently below 10% in all cases. PEPT and kriging tended to overestimate area-averaged velocity in higher occlusion cases but accurately predicted maximum cross-sectional velocity, particularly at peak flow. Kriging was shown to be useful to estimate the maximum velocity after the stenosis in the absence of negative nearwall velocity.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85179769342&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295789; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38096169; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295789; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295789; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295789
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know