MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1965160999 · doi:10.1121/1.3508099

The wall-filter selection curve method for objective tuning of power Doppler clutter filter cutoff velocity.

2010· article· en· W1965160999 on OpenAlexaff
James C. Lacefield, S. Pintér

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterImaging phantomCutoffFilter (signal processing)Cutoff frequencyAcousticsOpticsDoppler effectBiomedical engineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsComputer scienceMedicineRadarComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-frequency power Doppler ultrasound is commonly used to assess vascularity in small-animal cancer models, but quantitative images can be difficult to obtain in the presence of clutter artifacts. To improve vascular quantification, the color pixel density (CPD) in a region of interest can be plotted as a function of wall-filter cutoff velocity to produce the wall-filter selection curve. A mathematical model based on receiver operating characteristic statistics was developed to guide the interpretation of wall-filter selection curves. Mathematical predictions were tested using a VisualSonics Vevo 770 system with a 30-MHz transducer and a flow phantom containing four 200–300-μm-diameter vessels. The phantom mimicked vessel configurations observed in micro-CT images of a transgenic mouse prostate cancer model. Selection curves characteristically include a plateau whose CPD may correspond to either the total vascular volume fraction or to the volume fraction of a subset of vessels in the region. The flow-phantom data indicate that the plateau provides a reliable estimate of total vascularity if the plateau begins at a cutoff velocity <2 mm/s and is longer than 0.5 mm/s. The wall-filter selection curve may enable adaptation of scanner settings to changing flow conditions as a tumor progresses during a longitudinal study.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications→French-language works237,207→