MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994495413 · doi:10.1155/2013/936593

Acoustic Angiography: A New Imaging Modality for Assessing Microvasculature Architecture

2013· article· en· W1994495413 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan C. Gessner, C. Brandon Frederick, F. Stuart Foster, Paul A. Dayton

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biomedical Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsModality (human–computer interaction)AngiographyVisualizationComputer scienceContrast (vision)UltrasoundRadiologyModalitiesUltrasound imagingMedicineBiomedical engineeringMedical physicsComputer visionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to provide the biomedical imaging community with details of a new high resolution contrast imaging approach referred to as "acoustic angiography." Through the use of dual-frequency ultrasound transducer technology, images acquired with this approach possess both high resolution and a high contrast-to-tissue ratio, which enables the visualization of microvascular architecture without significant contribution from background tissues. Additionally, volumetric vessel-tissue integration can be visualized by using b-mode overlays acquired with the same probe. We present a brief technical overview of how the images are acquired, followed by several examples of images of both healthy and diseased tissue volumes. 3D images from alternate modalities often used in preclinical imaging, contrast-enhanced micro-CT and photoacoustics, are also included to provide a perspective on how acoustic angiography has qualitatively similar capabilities to these other techniques. These preliminary images provide visually compelling evidence to suggest that acoustic angiography may serve as a powerful new tool in preclinical and future clinical imaging.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations154
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biomedical ImagingSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207