MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1956457931 · doi:10.1121/1.4933706

Axial transmission assessment of trabecular bone at distal radius using guided wave

2015· article· en· W1956457931 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Pereira, Alexandre Abid, Lucien Diotalevi, Julio Fernandes, Pierre Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRADIUSImaging phantomTrabecular boneMerge (version control)Materials scienceOsteoporosisExcitationCortical boneQuantitative computed tomographyBiomedical engineeringBone densityOpticsPhysicsAnatomyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diagnosis of osteoporosis at skeletal sites composed mainly of trabecular bone, such as distal radius, can be considered clinically more relevant then cortical bone regions. Thus, the possibility to merge the potential of guided waves method to the clinical relevance of trabecular bone assessment is extremely motivating and has not yet been explored in details. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to investigate the feasibility of guided waves method to detect variation in the mechanical properties of trabecular bone at the distal radius using axial transmission. Due to the complexity of the distal region, three-dimensional finite elements simulations were performed using a bone model built from a computed tomography image of a human radius. The accuracy of the numerical model was experimentally validated using a bone phantom. The simulated excitation was transmitted to the radius using a longitudinal load applied to a small circular region at the extremity of distal radius. The identification of the guided waves was evaluated using 2DFFT transform. The results showed that the excitation imposed at the extremity of the distal radius creates guided waves that propagate along the long bone. Furthermore, the identified modes showed high sensitivity to the trabecular bone properties.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207