English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

How patient specific are patient-specific computational models of cerebral aneurysms? An overview of sources of error and variability