Numerical analysis of the relationship between the area of target tissue necrosis and the size of target tissue in liver tumours with pulsed radiofrequency ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is currently restricted to the treatment of target tissues with a small size (<3 cm in diameter). To overcome this problem with RFA, some phenomena need to be understood first. The study presented in this paper investigated the relationship between the area of target tissue necrosis (TTN) and the size of target tissue in pulsed radiofrequency ablation (PRFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Liver tumour, one of the common targets of RFA in clinical practice, was used as the target tissue in this study. Two types of pulsed RF power supply methods (half-square and half-sine) and three target tissues with different sizes (25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm in diameter) were studied using finite element modelling. The finite element model (FEM) was validated by using an in vitro experiment with porcine liver tissue. The first roll-off occurrence or 720 s, whichever occurs first, was chosen as the ablation termination criterion in this study. RESULTS: For each target tissue size, the largest TTN area was obtained using the maximum voltage applied (MVA) without roll-off occurrence. In this study, target tissues with a 25 mm diameter can be ablated cleanly but target tissues with 30-mm and 35-mm failed to be ablated. CONCLUSIONS: The half-square PRFA could achieve a larger TTN area than the half-sine PRFA. The MVA decreases with an increase in the target tissue diameter in both the half-square PRFA and the half-sine PRFA. The findings of this study are in agreement with the clinical results that lesions (≥ 3 cm in diameter) have less favourable results from RFA.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".