Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Rupture prediction of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remains a clinical challenge. Finite element analysis (FEA) may allow for improved identification for intervention timing, but the method needs further substantiation. In this study, experimental photoelastic method and finite element techniques were compared using an idealised AAA geometry. There was good agreement between the numerical and experimental results. At the proximal and distal end of the AAA model, the maximum differences in principle strain for an internal pressure of 120 mmHg had differences ranging from 0.03 to 10.01%. The maximum difference in principle strain for the photoelastic and the finite element model at a pressure of 120 mmHg was 0.167 and 0.158, respectively. The current research strengthens the case for using FEA as an adjunct to the current clinical practice of utilising diameter measurement for intervention timing.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2011.574618 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!