Adaptive design of experiments to fit surrogate Gaussian process regression models allows fast sensitivity analysis of the input waveform for patient-specific 3D CFD models of liver radioembolization.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patient-specific 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models are increasingly being used to understand and predict transarterial radioembolization procedures used for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment. While sensitivity analyses of these CFD models can help to determine the most impactful input parameters, such analyses are computationally costly. Therefore, we aim to use surrogate modelling to allow relatively cheap sensitivity analysis. As an example, we compute Sobol's sensitivity indices for three input waveform shape parameters. METHODS: We extracted three characteristic shape parameters from our input mass flow rate waveform (peak systolic mass flow rate, heart rate, systolic duration) and defined our 3D input parameter space by varying these parameters within 75 %-125 % of their nominal values. To fit our surrogate model with a minimal number of costly CFD simulations, we developed an adaptive design of experiments (ADOE) algorithm. The ADOE uses 100 Latin hypercube sampled points in 3D input space to define the initial design of experiments (DOE). Subsequently, we re-sample input space with 10,000 Latin Hypercube sampled points and cheaply estimate the outputs using the surrogate model. In each of 27 equivolume bins which divide our input space, we determine the most uncertain prediction of the 10,000 points, compute the true outputs using CFD, and add these points to the DOE. For each ADOE iteration, we calculate Sobol's sensitivity indices, and we continue to add batches of 27 samples to the DOE until the Sobol indices have stabilized. RESULTS: We tested our ADOE algorithm on the Ishigami function and showed that we can reliably obtain Sobol's indices with an absolute error <0.1. Applying ADOE to our waveform sensitivity problem, we found that the first-order sensitivity indices were 0.0550, 0.0191 and 0.407 for the peak systolic mass flow rate, heart rate, and the systolic duration, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the current study was an illustrative case, the ADOE allows reliable sensitivity analysis with a limited number of complex model evaluations, and performs well even when the optimal DOE size is a priori unknown. This enables us to identify the highest-impact input parameters of our model, and other novel, costly models in the future.