Back

Modeling Particle Transport In Biomedical Flows Using Implicit Geometry Representations

Malloy, J. S.; Majee, S.; Sahni, A.; Roopnarinesingh, R.; Balu, A.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Mukherjee, D.

2026-06-11 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.06.07.730719 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Computational analysis of physiological and biomedical systems necessitate efficient geometry representations for high fidelity model predictions, including patient or device specificity. Particle-based Lagrangian computational approaches comprise a valuable approach to gain insights from quantitative velocity and pressure data from computational models. Examples include particle dynamics and transport in human vasculature for diseases such as stroke, thrombosis, and embolisms; and modern targeted drug delivery systems in the vascular network and respiratory airways. However, current particle simulation approaches can bear significant computational expense that scales with both number of particles and background fluid mesh resolution. A significant determinant of this computational expense is the contact resolution between particles and anatomically realistic vessel wall. Here, we develop an efficient particle dynamics model that leverages an implicit representation of real anatomical features using a signed distance field to efficiently resolve particle-wall contact. We outline the underlying algorithmic details, followed by a systematic illustration of performance and accuracy using simplified and analytically defined geometries and flow fields. Subsequently, we present a representative simulation of embolic particles along a human vascular segment where we compare our distance field-based approach against classical wall-contact checks based on assessing particle boundary intersection with triangulated surface mesh. Our approach transforms the underlying Lagrangian contact detection operation into an equivalent Eulerian operation, significantly speeding up bulk particle dynamics computations without significantly impacting accuracy or geometric fidelity.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 2%
15.3%
2
Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
3
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.1%
4
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.1%
5
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.9%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.9%
8
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
235 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
10
Interface Focus
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
12
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
13
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
14
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
15
Biophysical Journal
631 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
Journal of Mathematical Biology
40 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
17
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
18
Acta Biomaterialia
92 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
19
Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
IFAC-PapersOnLine
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
Frontiers in Physiology
106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
23
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%