Table 4.
Numerical ranking of the model parameters based on sensitivity analysis
| Model | Group | R d | R | C | L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4WK | PL | 5.8 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 6.7 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | 0.01 ± 0.01 |
| PAH1 | 5.3 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 5.5 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 0.05 ± 0.07 | |
| PAH2 | 6.2 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 5.2 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | |
| PAH3 | 7.1 ± 1.6 | 1.6 ± 6.1 | 3.1 ± 0.4 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | |
| PAH4 | 8.3 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 3.1 | 3.7 ± 0.3 | 0 ± 0 | |
| 3WK | PL | 5.8 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 6.7 | 2.9 ± 0.2 | – |
| PAH1 | 5.4 ± 0. 8 | 2.0 ± 5.4 | 2.6 ± 0.2 | – | |
| PAH2 | 6.3 ± 1.0 | 1.8 ± 5.2 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | – | |
| PAH3 | 7.1 ± 1.6 | 1.6 ± 6.1 | 3.1 ± 0.4 | – | |
| PAH4 | 8.3 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 3.1 | 3.7 ± 0.3 | – |
The distal resistance R d had the highest contribution, followed by C and R for both Windkessel models. L contributed the least in the 4WK with two orders of magnitude smaller.
PL (N = 17), PAH1 (N = 7), PAH2 (N = 8), PAH3 (N = 7), PAH4 (N = 5).