MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1849681763 · doi:10.7863/jum.2012.31.4.623

Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations

2012· review· en· W1849681763 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineTherapeutic ultrasoundUltrasoundMedical physicsIntensive care medicineSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applications of ultrasound in medicine for therapeutic purposes have been accepted and beneficial uses of ultrasonic biological effects for many years. Low-power ultrasound of about 1 MHz has been widely applied since the 1950s for physical therapy in conditions such as tendinitis and bursitis. In the 1980s, high-pressure-amplitude shock waves came into use for mechanically resolving kidney stones, and "lithotripsy" rapidly replaced surgery as the most frequent treatment choice. The use of ultrasonic energy for therapy continues to expand, and approved applications now include uterine fibroid ablation, cataract removal (phacoemulsification), surgical tissue cutting and hemostasis, transdermal drug delivery, and bone fracture healing, among others. Undesirable bioeffects can occur, including burns from thermal-based therapies and severe hemorrhage from mechanical-based therapies (eg, lithotripsy). In all of these therapeutic applications of ultrasound bioeffects, standardization, ultrasound dosimetry, benefits assurance, and side-effect risk minimization must be carefully considered to ensure an optimal benefit to risk ratio for the patient. Therapeutic ultrasound typically has well-defined benefits and risks and therefore presents a manageable safety problem to the clinician. However, safety information can be scattered, confusing, or subject to commercial conflicts of interest. Of paramount importance for managing this problem is the communication of practical safety information by authoritative groups, such as the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, to the medical ultrasound community. In this overview, the Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine outlines the wide range of therapeutic ultrasound methods, which are in clinical use or under study, and provides general guidance for ensuring therapeutic ultrasound safety.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it