Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • COVID-19 Content and Resources
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
EditorialEditorials

Point: CFD—Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination

D.F. Kallmes
American Journal of Neuroradiology March 2012, 33 (3) 395-396; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2993
D.F. Kallmes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Stimulated by our ongoing uncertainty about which unruptured cerebral aneurysms to treat brought about by a near-complete lack of meaningful clinical trial data, facilitated by substantial increases in computing power, and promulgated by scientists and engineers facile in generating massive amounts of data on estimated flow in virtual tubes, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) now holds a prominent position in the endovascular research community. Physicians see color displays generated by CFD and hope that we are starting to gain insight into why some aneurysms rupture and others do not. Journal editors have welcomed the field of CFD because of its captivating color schemes perfect for cover material, prompting some observers to propose that “Color For Doctors” represents the true meaning of CFD in the clinical realm.1 I, on the other hand, propose a different perspective on the emerging field of CFD: confounding factor dissemination.

By way of full disclosure, I am not a professional computational scientist. However, I did learn in college how to calculate a Reynold's number. By way of a little investigating, I also know the following: 1) that most published CFD articles apply boundary conditions on the basis of idealized flows from articles published in the late 1980s (rather than individualized patient flows), 2) that the walls of the vessels are assumed to be rigid, and 3) that estimated numeric outputs can vary as much as 50% on the basis of whether geometries used CTA or 3D rotational angiography.2 Finally, I know that the simple mathematic definition of wall shear stress (WSS) is simply the slope of the line from a curve plotting velocity as a function of distance from the vessel wall.

I have been told by computational scientists that we clinicians do not really need to know all of the gory details anyway, just as we do not really need to know all of the details about how the x-ray equipment works to perform angiography. I beg to differ. For example, many or most computational articles at least mention WSS, and in numerous articles, WSS represents the prime focus and the potentially “bad actor” in aneurysm rupture. However, there are as many, or more, definitions of “WSS” as there are types of intracranial aneurysms. WSS can be averaged with time (“time averaged” WSS) or over an area (the inlet zone, outlet zone, or dome) or can be maximal (typically at peak systole) or minimal (at end diastole). It can be oscillatory (oscillatory shear index), can be normalized to the parent artery flow or not, or can be a difference of 2 WSSs (WSS gradient). Thus, to say that WSS is correlated with a specific phenotype may mean a lot of different things to different people, and it is no wonder that, in turn, both elevated and diminished WSS has been associated with rupture in various studies.3,4 Moreover, of course, correlation does not always equate to causation.

Unfortunately, defining WSS is just the beginning of the confusion. Each new computational article seems to introduce a new index or 2. We now need to learn, in addition to WSS, terms related to kinetic energy, vorticity, impact zone size, aneurysm-size ratio, aspect ratio, nonsphericity index, relative residence time, energy loss, and gradient oscillatory number5—and the list goes on and likely will continue to get longer. Given the rapid expansion of the number of potential CFD “outcomes,” it is highly likely that many new “correlations” between these outcomes and rupture will be found—that is, the more comparisons you do, the more likely you are to find a spurious difference.

Perhaps a key problem with CFD research is that it is generally performed by isolated groups analyzing data from a very small number of cases. Relatively small studies provide substantial value in screening potential indices but, in my opinion, are as likely as not to identify confounding variables rather than the true agents of harm. Moreover, this is even assuming that aneurysm rupture is hemodynamic rather than biologic, which remains unclear to say the least. To really figure out what, if any, clinical utility CFD has, we need collaboration across specialties, including but not limited to statisticians, endovascular therapists, and clinical trialists. Performing statistical correlations between dozens (now) and hundreds (soon) of computational indices with aneurysm phenotype (typically ruptured versus unruptured) likely will require extremely large clinical datasets and sophisticated tools such as machine learning.

Until now, neurointerventionalists have marveled at the aesthetically pleasing color images that CFD provides, hoping that someday soon they would lead to clinical application. Clinicians would love to have a CFD button to push that provides a “treat/do not treat” decision for a given patient, but that is probably not going to happen soon. To help define what, if any, flow-related parameters really matter clinically, CFD researchers will need to do a lot more work to close the gaps in information and address the conflicting information and confounding variables.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Steinman DA
    . Computational modeling and flow diverters: a teaching moment. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 981– 83
    FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Geers AJ,
    2. Larrabide I,
    3. Radaelli AG,
    4. et al
    . Patient-specific computational hemodynamics of intracranial aneurysms from 3D rotational angiography and CT angiography: an in vivo reproducibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 581– 86
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Sforza DM,
    2. Putman CM,
    3. Scrivano E,
    4. et al
    . Blood-flow characteristics in a terminal basilar tip aneurysm prior to its fatal rupture. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31: 1127– 31
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Shojima M,
    2. Oshima M,
    3. Takagi K,
    4. et al
    . Magnitude and role of wall shear stress on cerebral aneurysm: computational fluid dynamic study of 20 middle cerebral artery aneurysms. Stroke 2004; 35: 2500– 05
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Shimogonya Y,
    2. Ishikawa T,
    3. Imai Y,
    4. et al
    . Can temporal fluctuation in spatial wall shear stress gradient initiate a cerebral aneurysm? A proposed novel hemodynamic index, the gradient oscillatory number (GON). J Biomech 2009; 11;42: 550– 54. Epub 2009 Feb 4
  • © 2012 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 33 (3)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 33, Issue 3
1 Mar 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Point: CFD—Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Point: CFD—Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination
D.F. Kallmes
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2012, 33 (3) 395-396; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2993

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Point: CFD—Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination
D.F. Kallmes
American Journal of Neuroradiology Mar 2012, 33 (3) 395-396; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2993
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of 4D-DSA with 3D-DSA Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations in Cerebral Aneurysms
  • Towards the Clinical utility of CFD for assessment of intracranial aneurysm rupture - a systematic review and novel parameter-ranking tool
  • Hemodynamic characteristics of stable and unstable vertebrobasilar dolichoectatic and fusiform aneurysms
  • Critical role of angiographic acquisition modality and reconstruction on morphometric and haemodynamic analysis of intracranial aneurysms
  • A patient-specific intracranial aneurysm model with endothelial lining: a novel in vitro approach to bridge the gap between biology and flow dynamics
  • Does the DSA reconstruction kernel affect hemodynamic predictions in intracranial aneurysms? An analysis of geometry and blood flow variations
  • Porcine In Vivo Validation of a Virtual Contrast Model: The Influence of Contrast Agent Properties and Vessel Flow Rates
  • Wall Mechanical Properties and Hemodynamics of Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms
  • Narrowing the Expertise Gap for Predicting Intracranial Aneurysm Hemodynamics: Impact of Solver Numerics versus Mesh and Time-Step Resolution
  • Quantitative comparison of hemodynamic parameters from steady and transient CFD simulations in cerebral aneurysms with focus on the aneurysm ostium
  • Morphologic and hemodynamic analysis of paraclinoid aneurysms: ruptured versus unruptured
  • CFD: Computational Fluid Dynamics or Confounding Factor Dissemination? The Role of Hemodynamics in Intracranial Aneurysm Rupture Risk Assessment
  • Toward Improving Fidelity of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations: Boundary Conditions Matter
  • High WSS or Low WSS? Complex Interactions of Hemodynamics with Intracranial Aneurysm Initiation, Growth, and Rupture: Toward a Unifying Hypothesis
  • Resolving the Issue of Resolution
  • Mind the Gap: Impact of Computational Fluid Dynamics Solution Strategy on Prediction of Intracranial Aneurysm Hemodynamics and Rupture Status Indicators
  • 3D Cine Phase-Contrast MRI at 3T in Intracranial Aneurysms Compared with Patient-Specific Computational Fluid Dynamics
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Coffee Houses and Reading Rooms
  • Comeback Victory
  • Teaching Lessons by MR CLEAN
Show more EDITORIALS

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2022 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2023 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire