Paper detail

Multilevel and multifidelity uncertainty quantification for cardiovascular hemodynamics

Standard approaches for uncertainty quantification in cardiovascular modeling pose challenges due to the large number of uncertain inputs and the significant computational cost of realistic three-dimensional simulations. We propose an efficient uncertainty quantification framework utilizing a multilevel multifidelity Monte Carlo estimator to improve the accuracy of hemodynamic quantities of interest while maintaining reasonable computational cost. This is achieved by leveraging three cardiovascular model fidelities, each with varying spatial resolution to rigorously quantify the variability in hemodynamic outputs. We employ two low-fidelity models to construct several different estimators. Our goal is to investigate and compare the efficiency of estimators built from combinations of these low-fidelity and high-fidelity models. We demonstrate this framework on healthy and diseased models of aortic and coronary anatomy, including uncertainties in material property and boundary condition parameters. We seek to demonstrate that for this application it is possible to accelerate the convergence of the estimators by utilizing a MLMF paradigm. Therefore, we compare our approach to Monte Carlo and multilevel Monte Carlo estimators based only on three-dimensional simulations. We demonstrate significant reduction in total computational cost with the MLMF estimators. We also examine the differing properties of the MLMF estimators in healthy versus diseased models, as well as global versus local quantities of interest. As expected, global quantities and healthy models show larger reductions than local quantities and diseased model, as the latter rely more heavily on the highest fidelity model evaluations. In all cases, our workflow coupling Dakota's MLMF estimators with the SimVascular cardiovascular modeling framework makes uncertainty quantification feasible for constrained computational budgets.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.