MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985299206 · doi:10.1117/12.875786

Oxygen consumption estimation with combined color doppler ultrasound and photoacoustic microscopy: a phantom study

2011· article· en· W1985299206 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Jiang, Tyler Harrison, Alex Forbrich, Roger J. Zemp

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotoacoustic Doppler effectDoppler effectMaterials scienceImaging phantomOpticsUltrasoundPhotoacoustic imaging in biomedicineUltrasonic sensorPhotoacoustic spectroscopyLaserTransducerLaser Doppler velocimetryWavelengthBiomedical engineeringBlood flowAcousticsPhysicsOptoelectronicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metabolic rate of oxygen consumption (MRO2) quantifies tissue metabolism, which is important for diagnosis of many diseases. For a single vessel model, the MRO2 can be estimated in terms of the mean flow velocity, vessel crosssectional area, total concentration of hemoglobin (CHB), and the difference between the oxygen saturation (sO2) of blood flowing into and out of the tissue region. In this work, we would like to show the feasibility to estimate MRO2 with our combined photoacoustic and high-frequency ultrasound imaging system. This system uses a swept-scan 25-MHz ultrasound transducer with confocal dark-field laser illumination optics. A pulse-sequencer enables ultrasonic and laser pulses to be interlaced so that photoacoustic and Doppler ultrasound images are co-registered. Since the mean flow velocity can be measured by color Doppler ultrasound, the vessel cross-sectional area can be measured by power Doppler or photoacoustic imaging, and multi-wavelength photoacoustic methods can be used to estimate sO2 and CHB, all of these parameters necessary for MRO2 estimation can be provided by our system. Experiments have been performed on flow phantoms to generate co-registered color Doppler and photoacoustic images. To verify the sO2 estimation, two ink samples (red and blue) were mixed in various concentration ratios to mimic different levels of sO2, and the result shows a good match between the calculated concentration ratios and actual values.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207