How patient specific are patient-specific computational models of cerebral aneurysms? An overview of sources of error and variability
David A. Steinman, Vítor Mendes Pereira
Abstract
Open-access reader
David A. Steinman, Vítor Mendes Pereira
Abstract
Open-access reader
Computational modeling of cerebral aneurysms, derived from clinical 3D angiography, has become widespread over the past 15 years. While such "image-based" or "patient-specific" models have shown promise for the assessment of rupture risk, much debate remains about their reliability in light of necessary modeling assumptions and incomplete or uncertain model input parameters derived from the clinic. The aims of this review were to walk through the various steps of this so-called patient-specific modeling pipeline and to highlight evidence supporting those steps that we can or cannot rely on. The relative importance of the different sources of error and variability on hemodynamic predictions is summarized, with recommendations to standardize for those that can be avoided and to pay closer attention those to that cannot.
OpenAlex reports 70 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Computational modeling of cerebral aneurysms, derived from clinical 3D angiography, has become widespread over the past 15 years. While such "image-based" or "patient-specific" models have shown promise for the assessment of rupture risk, much debate remains about their reliability in light of necessary modeling assumptions and incomplete or uncertain model input parameters derived from the clinic. The aims of this review were to walk through the various steps of this so-called patient-specific modeling pipeline and to highlight evidence supporting those steps that we can or cannot rely on. The relative importance of the different sources of error and variability on hemodynamic predictions is summarized, with recommendations to standardize for those that can be avoided and to pay closer attention those to that cannot.
Key concepts: Pipeline (software), Computer science, Reliability (semiconductor), Medicine, Risk analysis (engineering), Medical physics, Physics, Quantum mechanics