36 research outputs found

    Model clinical data comparison.

    No full text
    <p>(Comparison between resistance at a flow rate of 0.17 L/s in the central airways model from CT data and the complete (parent) airways model with clinical data. Top row shows central airways, bottom row shows complete (parent) airways. Panels A & B show comparison of resistance with GINA Class, in both cases statistically significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) differences were observed between resistances in healthy and severe (GINA 3–5) ashthmatics. Panels C & D show correlation between resistances and patient FEV1. In both cases moderate statistically significant correlations were observed (central: <i>ρ</i> = −0.52, <i>p</i> < 0.01, complete (parent): <i>ρ</i> = −0.64, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Panels E & F show correlation between resistances and FEV1/FVC. A mild statistically signifcant correlation was observed with airways resistance in the complete (parent) model: <i>ρ</i> = −0.56, <i>p</i> < 0.01). In all panels colour indicates patient GINA classification (Green: Healthy, Blue: GINA 1–2, Red: GINA 3–5). In panels C-F the solid line is a logarithmic regression (C-D) or linear regression (E-F) and the dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals for the regression. Regression coefficients were (C: Intercept (b) = -0.018, Slope (a) = 0.0035, D: b = 0.046, a = -0.038, E: b = 0.079, a = -0.041, F: b = 0.12, a = -0.12.</p

    Flow resistance in imaging and generated portions of the airway tree.

    No full text
    <p>Analysis of contribution of the central and generated airways to total airflow resistance in the airway trees. Panels A and B show a kernel density plot of the fraction of total airflow resistance in the complete conducting models contributed by the algorithmically generated airways using Poiseuille resistance (A) and resistance at the high flow rate (1.67 L/s), colour indicates patient GINA classification (Green: Healthy, Blue: GINA 1–2, Red: GINA 3–5). A mean of 66% (Poiseuille resistance) to 44% (high flow rate) can be attributed to the generated airways. Similar plots for each of the individual groups are shown in Fig B in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0144105#pone.0144105.s001" target="_blank">S1 File</a>.</p

    Representative flow resistance at different flow rates in three of the patient based models.

    No full text
    <p>Top row shows the contribution of each generation in the complete (parent) conducting airway models to the total airways resistance at the different tested flow rates. Three representative models are shown in the healthy (A), GINA 1–2 (C) and GINA 3–5 (F) groups. Bottom row shows the corresponding airway radii in each generation in each of the three representative models (Healthy (D), GINA1–2 (E), GINA 3–5 (F)). Error bars show standard deviation of the radii within a generation.</p

    Model development.

    No full text
    <p>(a) An example cross-sectional slice through one of the CT images. (b) Central airways segmented from the same CT image. The segmentation consists of a centreline and minimum radius information, but is rendered as a series of tubes. The tubes are colour coded by the airway radius (see scale bar below (d)). (c) Lobar segmentations, a distinct colour is used for each lobe. (d) The complete conducting airway tree generated using the segmentations shown and the parent airway radius scheme. The tree is colour coded by airway radius (see scale bar).</p

    Clinical and sputum characteristics of patients categorized according to GINA.

    No full text
    <p>GINA: Global Initiative for Asthma; BD: bronchodilator; LABA: long-acting bronchodilator; FEV<sub>1</sub>: forced expiratory volume in one second; TCC: total cell counts; BDP: beclomethasone dipropionate; PC<sub>20</sub>FEV<sub>1</sub>: provocative concentration of methacholine to induce a 20% decrease in FEV1;</p><p>*mean (SE);</p>†<p>geometric mean (95% CI);</p>‡<p>median (IQR);</p><p>**<i>P</i><0.05 compared to control.</p
    corecore